To Flatter The Jury: Ingratiation During Closing Arguments

Abstract

Ingratiation is a powerful tool of persuasion in many settings. In the current study, participants read a description of a criminal case and then viewed a videotaped presentation of closing arguments from actors portraying the prosecuting and defense attorneys. The defense attorney's closing argument contained either no, low, moderate or high levels of ingratiation. Ingratiation significantly affected juror ratings of attorney attractiveness, trustworthiness, likeability, confidence and overall credibility. As ingratiation increased, ratings of attractiveness, likeability, and credibility increased, whereas ratings of confidence decreased. The relationship between ingratiation and guilt was mediated by ratings of attorney attractiveness, trustworthiness and confidence. Higher levels of these traits significantly lowered ratings of the defendant's guilt. Implications for the use of ingratiation during closing arguments of trials are discussed.

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 — 10 citations exist upstream.

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