Association for Psychological Science, Poster Session XI (May 26, 2012, 1:00 PM)

1. PERSONAL BELIEFS AND PUBLIC PRINT: THE INFLUENCE OF ATTITUDES AND PRETRIAL PUBLICITY
Sara M. Locatelli, PhD1 • Linda Heath, PhD2 • Scott Tindale, PhD2 • John Edwards, PhD2
1Center for Management of Complex Chronic Care, Hines VA Hospital, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines, IL 2Department of Psychology, Loyola University, Chicago, IL
INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION
a specific admonition to ignore PTP, or a specific admonition with the Table 2. Predicting guilt rating and verdict with resisting arrest PTP, attitude, and juror instructions
Pretrial publicity (PTP), defined as any news story about a case not yet in additional statement that PTP can be unreliable. DV: Guilt Rating DV: Verdict Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported, but only among participants receiving prior record
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
PTP. On the other hand, hypothesis 3 was not supported; attitude only interacted with
trial, has been shown to affect trial outcomes. The court has dealt with Finally, a two-question posttest was used to obtain participant verdicts, with Predictors B SE Beta t B SE Beta t B SE Wald B SE Wald
PTP information when standard instructions were used. Jury instructions affected guilt
PTP in a variety of ways. One way is with judicial remedies: the choices being guilty and not guilty, as well as a rating of guilt, ranging Constant 4.43 0.26 16.80** 5.05 0.38 13.48** -0.49 0.48 -1.03 -0.15 0.69 -0.22
rating among participants receiving confession or resisting arrest PTP, but not in the
PTP 0.37 0.25 0.14 1.47 -0.43 0.43 -0.16 -1.02 -0.02 0.45 -0.05 -0.45 0.79 -0.57
• Continuance – Place trial on hold until publicity subsides from 1 – definitely not guilty to 7 – definitely guilty. same way as it did among participants receiving prior record PTP. That is, instructions
Specific Instructions -0.05 0.26 -0.02 -0.20 -1.31 0.56 -0.54 -2.35* 0.51 0.46 1.11 -1.01 1.11 -0.91
that specifically addressed PTP led to increases in guilt ratings, and also marginally
• Extended voir dire – Spend more time questioning potential jurors Guilt data were analyzed with linear multiple regressions and verdict data
Strong Instructions 0.06 0.26 0.02 0.23 -0.63 0.52 -0.26 -1.23 -0.03 0.48 -0.07 0.19 0.95 0.20
increased guilty verdicts when confession PTP was used. Finally, when resisting arrest
Attitude 0.25 0.12 0.19 2.01* 0.47 0.27 0.36 1.72+ 0.31 0.22 1.41 0.71 0.55 1.30
• Judicial admonition – Warn jurors to ignore outside information were analyzed using logistic multiple regressions. Interactions were tested PTP X Specific 1.59 0.63 0.61 2.53** 1.88 1.23 1.53
PTP was used, participants with a stronger attitude that resisting arrest implied guilt
following the procedures of Aiken and West (1991). PTP X Strong 0.90 0.60 0.33 1.50 -0.36 1.11 -0.32
assigned higher guilt ratings; this effect was not reduced by jury instructions to ignore
• Change of venire – Bring jurors from another jurisdiction
PTP X Attitude -0.22 0.30 -0.16 -0.77 -4163.00^ 0.60 -0.69 outside information, and specific instructions strengthened the effect of PTP on guilt
• Change of venue – Move trial to another jurisdiction (and draw jurors from there) This study also measured the effect of general criminal justice attitudes on rating.
Note. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. ^ Large parameter estimates and standard errors often occur when there is insufficient
guilt ratings and verdict preferences - see our other poster (Edwards & sample size to test the number of predictors (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Guilt Rating - Model 1: R2 = 0.05, F(4,110) = 1.43, p = This study provides more evidence for the biasing effects of PTP. It is important to keep
The research examining continuance, voir dire, and judicial admonitions Locatelli, Poster Session XV Board 077) for more information.
0.23, Model 2: R2 = 0.10, F(7,107) = 1.77, p = 0.10, ΔR2 = 0.05, ΔF(3,107) = 2.17, p = 0.10. Verdict – Model 1: Correctly
in mind, however, that PTP is not always biasing, and that some studies do not find PTP
predicted 70.4% of verdicts, χ2 (df = 110) = 152.10, p = 0.005, Model 2: Correctly predicted 76.5% of verdicts, χ2 (df = 107) =
have not always found strong conclusions, though our lack of complete 147.97, p = 0.005. effects, or may even find the opposite effect – that PTP reduces bias toward guilt. Type
understanding of PTP effects may make it difficult to uncover remedies of case and amount of PTP may explain differences in results compared to other studies.
that will actually have an effect (Studebaker & Penrod, 1997). RESULTS Most PTP studies use homicide or sexual assault cases, which use different types of
Many theories have been applied to PTP research, with few theories evidence; these cases may also be considered more sensational by the public and may
Neither linear regression model using confession PTP was significant. garner more attention, both in the amount of media coverage of the event as well as
providing a strong explanation for the effects. The current study draws Both linear regression models using prior record PTP were significant, and attention to the media information by consumers. Additionally, this study used one article
upon attitude theory to test and explain PTP and the effect of remedies. However, strong instructions were found to interact with confession PTP to contained several significant interactions, including three-way interactions. with only one sentence that introduced the biasing information; other studies of PTP
The present research will expand on prior attitude research by measuring influence guilt rating; participants receiving confession PTP and strong Post-hoc probing showed that attitudes only interacted with PTP when often use more articles or more biasing information within a single article.
the effect of specific attitudes toward the PTP information instead of instructions assigned higher guilt ratings than participants receiving neutral standard instructions were used. The logistic regression models also This study is one attempt to explain why PTP may be biasing for some jurors. It may not
general attitude toward crime, which, according to theory on attitude- PTP and strong instructions. No significant predictors emerged from the contained significant predictors, including the interaction between attitude be the information alone, but the pre-existing attitude of the juror, that interacts with the
behavior correspondence (Ajzen & Sexton, 1999; Ronis, Yates, & Kirscht, logistic regressions. case and PTP information. Though additional work is needed to clarify the wording of
and PTP. Participants with a weak attitude who received neutral PTP were
1989), should have a stronger relationship to verdict preferences. instructions to correct for these effects, these results give some guidance as to when
more likely to vote guilty than participants with low attitude who received PTP may bias jurors, and in how to uncover such bias.
Table 1. Predicting guilt rating and verdict with confession PTP, attitude, and juror instructions
DV: Guilt Rating DV: Verdict
prior record PTP; on the other hand, participants who received prior record
HYPOTHESES Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 PTP were almost 5 times more likely to vote guilty than participants with a
Predictors B SE Bet t B SE Beta t B SE Wald B SE Wald strong attitude who received neutral PTP. REFERENCES
1- PTP X Attitudes: Attitudes will interact with PTP information to influence a
Constant 4.55 0.27 16.90** 4.95 0.36 13.62** -0.45 0.26 -0.97 0.14 0.61 0.22
verdict preference; individuals with weak attitudes will Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
PTP 0.22 0.26 0.08 0.86 -0.32 0.42 -0.11 -0.75 0.08 0.44 0.18 -0.73 0.73 -1.01
be unaffected by PTP information, whereas individuals interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Specific Instructions 0.11 0.27 0.04 0.69 -0.10 0.52 -0.04 -0.19 0.48 0.46 1.04 -0.19 0.88 -0.22
with strong attitudes will be strongly affected by PTP. Strong Instructions 0.58 0.27 0.23 2.13* -0.50 0.57 -0.20 -0.89 0.65 0.46 1.40 -0.59 0.97 -0.61 Table 3. Predicting guilt rating and verdict with prior record PTP, attitude, and juror instructions Ajzen, I., & Sexton, J. (1999). Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-
Attitude 0.08 0.15 0.05 0.56 -0.25 0.31 -0.16 -0.81 0.40 0.25 1.57 0.29 0.53 0.54 DV: Guilt Rating DV: Verdict behavior correspondence. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in
2- Admonitions (Specific, Strong): Stronger, more specific judicial PTP X Specific 0.33 0.61 0.12 0.54 0.95 1.04 0.91 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 social psychology (pp. 117-138). New York: Guilford.
admonitions will reduce guilty verdicts. PTP X Strong 1.40 0.65 0.51 2.16* 1.64 1.11 1.47 Predictors B SE Beta t B SE Beta t B SE Wald B SE Wald
PTP X Attitude 0.42 0.35 0.23 1.20 0.17 0.61 0.28 Constant 4.62 0.28 16.56** 4.48 0.37 12.05** 0.16 0.51 0.32 0.20 0.68 0.30
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J., & Bauer, D.J. (2004a). Simple intercepts, simple slopes,
3- PTP X Attitudes X Admonitions: People with strong attitudes should be PTP 0.43 0.27 0.14 1.64+ 0.62 0.43 0.21 1.45 0.06 0.50 0.13 0.04 0.80 0.05
and regions of significance in MLR 2-way interactions. Retrieved from
Note. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Guilt Rating - Model 1: R2 = 0.05, F(4,116) = 1.53, p = 0.20, Model 2:
less affected by judicial admonitions Specific Instructions -0.38 0.27 -0.18 -1.42 -0.75 0.56 -0.29 -1.34 -0.77 0.50 -1.56 -2.40 1.33 -1.80+ http://www.quantpsy.org
R2 = 0.09, F(7,113) = 1.68, p = 0.12, ΔR2 = 0.04, ΔF(4,113) = 1.83, p = 0.13. Verdict – Model 1: Correctly
when presented with biasing information. predicted 80.2% of verdicts, χ2 (df = 116) = 163.92, p = 0.003, Model 2: Correctly predicted 82.6% of verdicts, χ2 Strong Instructions -0.14 0.27 -0.05 -0.51 0.46 0.56 0.18 0.83 -0.02 0.50 -0.04 1.11 1.12 0.99
Ronis, D.L., Yates, J.F., & Kirscht, J.P. (1989). Attitudes, decisions, and habits as
(df = 113) = 161.65, p = 0.002. Attitude 0.53 0.14 0.33 3.71** -1.62 0.59 -1.01 -2.72** 1.05 0.29 3.58** -0.53 0.64 -0.83
determinants of repeated behavior. In A.R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, and A.G. Greenwald
PTP X Specific 0.35 0.63 0.13 0.56 1.75 1.46 1.20
(Eds.), Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
METHODS Though the basic linear regression model using resisting arrest PTP was PTP X Strong -0.76 0.63 0.13 0.56 -1.37 1.27 -1.07
PTP X Attitude 2.37 0.66 1.28 3.62** 2.02 0.74 2.72** Studebaker, C.A., & Penrod, S.D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, law, and common
Participants were 353 Loyola students, obtained through the Introductory not significant, the interaction model was marginally significant. The main Attitude X Specific 1.56 0.74 0.53 2.10* sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 428-460.
Psychology participant pool, and recruited for a study on decision making effect of specific instructions was significant; participants receiving specific Attitude X Strong 1.80 0.76 0.70 2.37*
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston,
about court cases. Participants were exposed to one of four news articles, jury instructions assigned lower guilt ratings than participants receiving PTP X Attitude X Specific -1.48 0.85 -0.41 -1.74+
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
containing information on confession, prior record, or resisting arrest, or standard instructions. This was qualified, however, by a significant PTP X Attitude X Strong -1.86 0.85 -0.64 -2.20*
only neutral information. They took a measure of legal attitudes, in which interaction between resisting arrest PTP and specific instructions. Note. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Guilt Rating - Model 1: R2 = 0.14, F(4,112) = 4.46, p = 0.002, Model 2: R2 = 0.27,
they were assigned 2 questions relevant to the negative PTP information Post-hoc probing showed that participants receiving specific instructions F(11,105) = 3.56, p = 0.0003, ΔR2 = 0.13, ΔF(7,105) = 2.77, p = 0.01. Verdict – Model 1: Correctly predicted 83.8% of verdicts,
χ2 (df = 112) = 144.38, p = 0.02, Model 2: Correctly predicted 87.2% of verdicts, χ2 (df = 109) = 133.39, p = 0.06.
received (participants receiving neutral PTP were randomly assigned to and biasing PTP assigned higher guilt ratings than participants receiving The views expressed in this poster are the authors’ and do not
negative PTP questions), and then read a trial transcript of an assault on specific instructions and neutral PTP. No other differences were necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs
a middle-aged man. Participants then received standard jury instructions, significant. No significant predictors emerged from the logistic regressions. or the United States Government.