| Two studies were conducted to examine influences on juror decision-making in a mock jury task. The order of presentation and strength of arguments for the prosecution and defense were manipulated to test for primacy and recency effects. Assessment of each juror's need for cognition was conducted in order to identify individual differences that may underlie the observed effects of order of presentations and argument strength. Experiment 1 employed a hypothetical court case involving a stabbing. Two-hundred and twenty four subjects participated. Results from an ANOVA and a logistic regression revealed that the strength of the prosecution's arguments had a significant influence on juror's verdict. Furthermore, when assessing the results of the culpability scale, individuals low in need for cognition were more prone to an order effect, whereas those high in need for cognition based their decision on the strength of the arguments presented rather than the order of presentations. In addition to assessing individual's need for cognition, Experiment 2 examined juror's ability through the manipulation of complex and simplified expert testimonies. Two-hundred and eighty eight subjects participated. A simulated criminal case involving a murder was employed. Results of a logistic regression showed strength of arguments had a significant influence on jurors' verdicts. Individuals low in need for cognition were more affected by defense's expert testimony, whereas those individuals high in need for cognition were relatively unaffected by the complexity of the testimonies. Some of these findings are consistent with previous research and may be important factors when determining courtroom persuasion. |
