Affect-based Bias Correction and Its Impact on Cognitive Effort in Juridical Decision-making

This research tested several interventions designed to correct affect-based bias in juridical decision-making. The effects of affective bias correction on cognitive effort were also investigated. Jury pool members ( N = 300) acted as mock jurors in a civil commitment hearing of a twice-convicted child molester. Three affective bias correction interventions were tested: empathetic mirroring (i.e., acknowledgment) of jurors affective reactions, a motivational appeal to provide procedural justice, and a combination of both. Each intervention's impact on the relative appeal of differing types of expert psychological testimony (pure clinical or actuarial) was assessed.;No main effect of intervention was found; however, the intervention interacted with testimony type revealing information about the jurors' level of cognitive effort. When jurors' affective reactions were empathetically mirrored, pure clinical testimony was more persuasive than actuarial testimony. When motivated to provide procedural justice, jurors were more persuaded by actuarial testimony than clinical. When the interventions were combined, they interacted, increasing the persuasiveness of the less persuasive testimony type when the intervention was given individually (actuarial for those who were mirrored and clinical for those who were motivated), while leaving the level of persuasiveness of the more persuasive testimony type essentially unchanged. These findings are explained by Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST; Epstein, 1994, 2003).;Factors including participants' gender and affective reactions to the offender were examined. Participants reported a generalized negative reaction to the offender, as well as fear and disgust. Male and female participants differed in the extent to which their affective reaction was predictive of verdict. Males' level of disgust was predictive of verdicts, while females' greater negative reaction was positively associated with greater punitiveness. These findings are indicative of affect-based bias. In addition, when participants felt that the offender's attorney understood their reaction, they were more lenient. Feeling as though the offender's attorney understood their reaction interacted with participants' level of disgust such that feeling understood created a leniency effect when participants reported low levels of disgust but had no effect when participants indicated high levels of disgust. This interaction was stronger among men.;Policy and practical implications of these findings are discussed.