Information Integration Theory, Juror Bias, and Sentence Recommendations Captured Over Time in a Capital Trial

Abstract

Summary Initial juror verdicts have been shown to predict final verdicts, leading researchers to conclude that jurors seek confirmatory information during trial (confirmation bias) or distort information to fit pre‐existing biases (pre‐decisional distortion). However, Information Integration Theory suggests that individuals are not distorting/ignoring this information, and instead, information influences judgments in the direction of the message. The current study sought to test these competing theories in a juror setting. Mock jurors were presented with the sentencing phase of a capital trial and were asked to give sentence recommendations at eight different time points. Additionally, they were grouped by their pretrial bias as being pro‐defense, neutral, or pro‐prosecution. Results showed support for Information Integration Theory; although jurors' pretrial bias predicted final sentence, sentence recommendations were affected in the direction of the testimony presented throughout the trial (e.g., pro‐defense testimony lowered death penalty decisions across all groups). Implications and future directions are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.