國立虎尾科技大學 |

Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence : = Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence :/
Reminder of title:	Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions.
Author:	McCowan, Kristen.
Description:	1 online resource (268 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-02B.
Subject:	Psychology. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798841777366

Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence : = Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions.
McCowan, Kristen.

Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence :Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions. - 1 online resource (268 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2022.

Includes bibliographical references

Across three studies and two robust pilot studies, this project addressed issues surrounding prejudicial evidence and jury instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. Specifically, this project examined a new framework for understanding how people vary in their response to prejudicial evidence, based on the morals they value, and tested the effectiveness of a novel way to phrase jury instructions to debias jurors inspired by moral foundations theory. In two experimental studies, participants read a transcript of a sexual assault (Study 1: n = 544) or an assault and battery criminal case (Study 2: n = 509). In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read either a case with or without prejudicial evidence. Participants exposed to prejudicial evidence were either given standard jury instructions to disregard the evidence, no instructions, or novel jury instructions inspired by moral foundations theory. Individual differences in moral foundations affected how susceptible people were to prejudicial evidence and case facts in general. This pattern emerged regardless of the type of jury instructions in most cases, suggesting that the moral foundation inspired instructions failed to help jurors disregard prejudicial evidence. The impact of people's moral foundation endorsement has direct implications for how attorneys may phrase evidence to cater towards these moral biases and select ideal jurors during the voir dire process. To further advance people's understanding of the effects of prejudicial evidence and jury instructions in legal settings, a third study looked at how attorneys (n = 138) perceived the prevalence and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases and the effectiveness of jury instructions. Over three quarters of the sample (77.54%) reported having experienced prejudicial evidence in their cases and expressed concern that prejudicial evidence is influential to jurors with jury instructions being ineffective. Taken altogether, the results of this project show the potential impact moral foundation endorsement can have on case judgments and how jurors are differently influenced by prejudicial evidence. In addition, data from attorneys showing the perceived prevalent and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases further justifies the need to continue researching safeguards against prejudicial evidence.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798841777366Subjects--Topical Terms:

555998
Psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Moral foundationsIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence : = Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions.
LDR:03772ntm a2200409K 4500 001 1141198
005 20240116054222.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2022 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798841777366
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29261296
035 $a AAI29261296
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a McCowan, Kristen. $3 1464846
245 1 0 $a Moral Foundations and Prejudicial Evidence : $b Helping Jurors Adhere to Jury Instructions.
264 0 $c 2022
300 $a 1 online resource (268 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Neal, Tess M. S.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2022.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Across three studies and two robust pilot studies, this project addressed issues surrounding prejudicial evidence and jury instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence. Specifically, this project examined a new framework for understanding how people vary in their response to prejudicial evidence, based on the morals they value, and tested the effectiveness of a novel way to phrase jury instructions to debias jurors inspired by moral foundations theory. In two experimental studies, participants read a transcript of a sexual assault (Study 1: n = 544) or an assault and battery criminal case (Study 2: n = 509). In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read either a case with or without prejudicial evidence. Participants exposed to prejudicial evidence were either given standard jury instructions to disregard the evidence, no instructions, or novel jury instructions inspired by moral foundations theory. Individual differences in moral foundations affected how susceptible people were to prejudicial evidence and case facts in general. This pattern emerged regardless of the type of jury instructions in most cases, suggesting that the moral foundation inspired instructions failed to help jurors disregard prejudicial evidence. The impact of people's moral foundation endorsement has direct implications for how attorneys may phrase evidence to cater towards these moral biases and select ideal jurors during the voir dire process. To further advance people's understanding of the effects of prejudicial evidence and jury instructions in legal settings, a third study looked at how attorneys (n = 138) perceived the prevalence and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases and the effectiveness of jury instructions. Over three quarters of the sample (77.54%) reported having experienced prejudicial evidence in their cases and expressed concern that prejudicial evidence is influential to jurors with jury instructions being ineffective. Taken altogether, the results of this project show the potential impact moral foundation endorsement can have on case judgments and how jurors are differently influenced by prejudicial evidence. In addition, data from attorneys showing the perceived prevalent and impact of prejudicial evidence in real cases further justifies the need to continue researching safeguards against prejudicial evidence.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Psychology. $3 555998
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 554804
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 555769
650 4 $a Behavioral psychology. $3 1179418
653 $a Moral foundations
653 $a Prejudices
653 $a Inadmissible evidence
653 $a Debiasing jurors
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0621
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0394
690 $a 0384
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Law and Psychology. $3 1464847
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-02B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29261296 $z click for full text (PQDT)