Gruesome evidence: is verbal or visual evidence more effective in eliciting guilty verdicts?

Abstract

Previous research shows both visual and verbal gruesome evidence have a positive correlation with guilty verdicts. Although Bright and Goodman-Delahunty (2006) came closest, no previous research, to our knowledge, has directly compared the effectiveness of visual and verbal gruesome evidence on guilty verdicts. This study aimed to bridge that gap within literature. I hypothesized that participants exposed to either type of gruesome evidence will give higher guilt ratings than those exposed to nongruesome evidence. Additionally, I hypothesized that visual gruesome evidence would be more effective at increasing guilt ratings than verbal gruesome evidence and that this difference would be mediated by negative emotion. The study used a 2 x 2 experimental design manipulating photographic and written gruesomeness within a trial summary about a murder and used the modified PANAS to measure negative emotion. Results supported the second hypothesis, but not the first. Despite a successful manipulation based on our manipulation check, gruesome verbal descriptions did not increase guilt ratings or negative emotion. However, gruesome photographic evidence did, regardless of whether it was paired with gruesome or nongruesome verbal descriptions. This effect was mediated by disgust and sadness, but not by anger and anxiety. Implications are discussed. These results provide direction not only for academia, but for those acting as attorneys’ and judges in trial when determining what evidence to submit and allow the jurors to be exposed too. Future research might manipulate verbal evidence auditorily, rather than through a written medium, or manipulate what legal party introduces gruesome evidence.