1. References
•Clark, J., Boccaccini, M. T., Caillouet, B., & Chaplin, W. F.
(2007). Five factor model personality traits, jury selection,
and case outcomes in criminal and civil cases. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 641-660.
Devine,
•Hill, J. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the
courtroom: A double standard. Journal of Homosexuality,
39, 93–111.
•Kite, M.E. & Whitley, M. K. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes
toward homosexual persons behaviors and civil rights:
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336- 353.
• Sherrod, D., & Nardi, P. M. (1998). Homophobia in the
courtroom: An assessment of
biases against gay men and lesbians in a multiethnic
sample of potential jurors. In G. M.
• Stevenson, M. C., & Caldwell, T. L. (2009).
Personality in Juror Decision-Making: Toward an
Idiographic Approach in Research. Law & Psychology
Rev.,33, 93-114.
Predicting Conviction: The Effects of Juror Bias and Personality
Yeisi Alvarado-Santana, Mary Kathryn Brown, Twain Carter and Grace Won, Stacia Kingston
Oglethorpe University
Method
In the courts, jurors are expected serve as
impartial fact finders who reach unbiased
decisions after considering the facts of a case.
However, research indicates that jurors enter
courtrooms bringing with them a variety of
attitudes, beliefs, characteristics and personalities
that may compromise the very guiding principles
represented by lady justice. Thus, instead of
impartial judgments of fact, juries may render
decisions that, in part, are influenced by the jurors’
personal experiences, biases, and personalities
(Brunelli, 2000).
Additionally, homosexual individuals have been on
the receiving end of legislation that criminalizes or
marginalizes their behavior, restricts their rights,
and increases their vulnerability in court (Brunelli,
2000; Shortnacy, 2001).
Generally research indicates that, compared to
their heterosexual counterparts, gays and lesbians
tend to receive more discrimination in the courts
(e.g., Hill, 2000; Sherrod & Nardi, 1998).
Further, previous research has investigated a
variety of personality variables for their potential
contribution to jury decisions, such as
authoritarianism, dogmatism, and belief in a just
world (see Stevenson & Caldwell, 2009, for a
review).
In the current study, we were interested in
investigating the personality variables of the “Big
5” traits and self-actualization. Recent research
with the Big 5 traits has shown that jurors reporting
higher levels of openness and conscientiousness
were less likely to assign guilt (Clark, Boccaccini,
Caillouet, & Chaplin, 2007). In contrast, we are
unaware of previous research investigating the
relation of self-actualization to jury decisions. Self-
actualization refers to a concept that is central to
Humanistic theories of personality.
We predicted that: (1) Defendants portrayed as
gay or lesbian would receive higher guilty ratings
than their heterosexual counterparts, (2)
Participants with higher extraversion,
conscientiousness, and self-actualization would be
less likely to find defendants guilty (a main effect
across conditions), and (3) Participants with high
self-actualization, openness, and
conscientiousness would be less likely to
demonstrate discriminatory guilty voting toward
the homosexual defendants than participants low
in those characteristics (an interaction effect).
Contact Information:
jcarton@oglethorpe.edu
Participants
• One hundred sixty eight people that
consisted of students from a small private
university and non-students from the
community completed the study. I total the
survey encompassed 50 men and 118
women.
Measures
Big 5 Personality Traits (Big5;). This scale
was used to measure openness,
conscientiousness, extroversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism of the
study participants.
Short Index of Self-Actualization. This index
measured the degree of self-actualization
possessed by the study participants.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to
one of four basic vignettes involving a
criminal charge (constant), with four
randomly assigned conditions:
heterosexual male (1), gay male (2),
heterosexual female (3), and homosexual
female (4). The participants were asked
to determine the percentage of guilt they
would assign to a defendant. The
participants were instructed to complete
the questionnaires at the time that they
were provided with the packet. As an
incentive for the students to participate,
extra credit was provided for those
participants who are majoring in
psychology. Additionally, as an additional
incentive, participants were given candy
after they had completed the
questionnaire. Finally, participants were
instructed to return the packet to the
experimenter after completion.
Introduction Discussion
This study revealed the following:
1. Despite the hypothesis going into the study, no
strong correlation was found between the
participant’s Big 5 Personality Traits and the
likelihood of a guilty verdict.
2. No matter the defendant’s gender or sexual
orientation or the study participant’s gender, it was
more likely than not the defendant would be found
guilty (percentage of guilt ranged from 57% to 76%).
3. Female study participants were more likely to find
homosexual defendant guilty than their male study
counterparts. This finding contrasts with previous
studies which concluded male participants
demonstrate a higher degree of homophobia than
female participants (Ragatz & Russell, 2010; Kite &
Whitley, 1996).
4. Both male and female study participants were more
likely to hold the defendant culpable if the defendant
was homosexual.
Results
• Average scores and standard deviations by condition
and gender are reported in Table 1. Percentage guilty
ratings were analyzed with a 4 x 2 (Condition [gay
male, straight male, lesbian, straight female] x Gender
[male, female]) analysis of variance (ANCOVA)
controlling for participants’ age. The ANCOVA revealed
a significant effect of age, F(1,159) = 4.79, p = .03, ηp2
= .08, indicating that, as age of participant increased,
ratings of guilt decreased (further verified with a simple
correlation between age and guilt rating, r(168) = -.18, p
= .02). The analysis also revealed a main effect of
condition, F(3,159) = 2.53, p = .05, ηp2 = .04. Results
involving gender were not significant.
• Post-hoc tests of least significant difference (LSD)
were conducted to follow-up the main effect of
condition. They revealed that gay males were
significantly more likely to be found guilty than
heterosexual women (p = .02) and marginally more so
than heterosexual men (p = .08). Gay men did not differ
from lesbians in terms of guilty ratings. However,
lesbians were more likely to be found guilty than
heterosexual males (p = .04) and females (p = .01). The
difference between heterosexual males and females
was not significant.
• In addition to examining for evidence of discrimination
against gays and lesbians, we also tested the potential
role of personality variables assumed to affect
discrimination tendencies (i.e., amount of self-
actualization and openness). Analyses revealed no
interaction of personality variables with condition.
Thus, for instance, those high in self-actualization were
no less likely to vote guilty for any particular defendant
than those low in self-actualization.
• Although personality variables did not interact with the
condition variable as predicted, correlation analyses
involving the personality variables revealed some
significant results. Specifically, amount of self-
actualization was negatively correlated with guilty
ratings, indicating that the more self-actualization
reported by participants, the less likely they were to
vote guilty, r(142) = -.17, p = .04). Similarly, participants
reporting higher amounts of the big 5 trait of openness
were less likely to vote guilty, r(142) = -.16, p = .04).
The only other big 5 trait related to guilty ratings was
agreeableness, indicating that those high in this trait
were less likely to vote guilty, r(142) = -.15, p = .05).
Supplemental correlation analyses involving only the
personality variables revealed that self-actualization
was significantly related to all five of the big 5 traits in
predicted manners (i.e., higher self-actualization was
associated with greater openness, greater
conscientiousness, greater extraversion, greater
agreeableness, and less neuroticism; see Table 2).
Participants’ age was related to amount of self-
actualization, r(142) = .27, p = .01, openness, r(142) =
.21, p = .01, conscientiousness, r(142) = .19, p = .02,
and neuroticism, r(142) = -.18, p = .02. Thus, the older
the participant, the more self-actualization, openness,
conscientiousness reported and the less neuroticism
reported. Lastly, no gender differences were observed
with regard to any personality variable.
•Ragatz, L. a. (2010). Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Sexism:
What Influence Do These Factors Have on Verdicts in a
Crime-of-Passion Case? Journal of Social Psychology, 150
(4) 341-360.