Can Mock Jurors Be Primed Towards Guilt Or Innocence by Initial Statements Prior to Evidence Evaluation?

Abstract

This study will investigate how mock jurors select evidence when given a choice and whether their evaluation of evidence is influenced by an initial narrative. Participants will be randomly assigned to read one of three narratives designed to suggest guilt, innocence, or neutral stance towards a suspect. Participants will choose from six types of evidence (three eyewitnesses, three physical items), beginning with the most important and ending with the least important. Once an item of evidence is selected, participants will have four additional sub-evidence items to review (two suggesting guilt, two suggesting innocence). Participants will select sub-evidence from most to least important and rate each for guilt. Once each sub-evidence is rated, participants will return to the original six items and repeat the process for the remaining evidence until all six have been selected and all sub-evidence have been rated. Participants will make a confidence rating followed by a final guilty/not guilty verdict. It is predicted that participants primed with the guilt narrative will find the suspect guilty more than those primed with the innocent or neutral narrative; participants primed with the innocent narrative will find the suspect innocent more than those primed with the guilt or neutral narrative; and participants primed with the neutral narrative will find the suspect guilty more than those primed with the innocent narrative but less than those primed with the guilt narrative.