Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!

Recent Comments:

Rita Handrich comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Erica Anderson comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Marjorie Fargo comments on SJQs for White Collar Defense See the comment

Michael Brockwell comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Chris O'Brien comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Darla Russell comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Paul Luvera blogs on Effective Voir Dire See the blog post

Mitchell Thomas comments on Jurors' Perceptions of Attorneys See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Packing Like a Pro See the comment

Joshua Franklin comments on Effective Voir Dire See the comment

Annie Gough comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment 

Matt Groebe responds to Charli Morris on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

D. Montiel comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Francesca Cerrato comments on Trial Graphics on the Cheap See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Bifurcation/Hindsight See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Can the iPod Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Sean comments on Can the iPad Pick Your Next Jury? See the comment

Frank Pray comments on How to Present Yourself in Court See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Joe Guastaferro comments on Do We Need Einsteins in the Jury Box? See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on the Psychology of Voir Dire at her blog In the News. See the blog post

Kathy Kellermann comments on Police Deception During Interrogation See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?)  See the comment

Charli Morris comments on Political Attack Ads (What Can We Learn?) See the comment

Laura Dominic responds to Kathy Kellerman's comment on Gender in the Courtroom See Laura's response

Kathy Kellermann comments on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Kathy Kellermann comments on Gender in the Courtroom See the comment

Paul B. Kennedy has blogged on Gender in the Courtroom at his blog: The Defense Rests See the post

Edward Schwartz has commented on Could the iPad Pick Your Next Jury See the comment

Kathy Kellerman has commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged on Working for Justice in Neshoba County at his blog: The Jury Room See the post

Phil Monte comments on SJQs for The Holy War See the comment

Dan Hull comments on Managing & Mentoring Millennials See the comment

Sean Overland comments on Out of the Shadows, Into the Jury Box See the comment

Blawg Review #283 cites Managing & Mentoring Millennials See Blawg Review #283

mikee  comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court? See the comment

Rita Handrich has blogged on Managing & Mentoring Millennials at her firm blog: The Jury Room See the post

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog (Scoptur's Law) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has pointed readers of his blog (Juries) to the new issue of The Jury Expert See the blog post

Michael Drake at Strange Doctrines blog has pointed his readers to Grime and Punishment See the blog post

Roland Stark has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

Keith Lee has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology and TMI at his blog: An Associate's Mind See the post

Jason Barnes has posted a link on a recent Batson ruling from the 9th Circuit See the link

The University of Texas at Austin Law School Advocacy Program recommends The Jury Expert to their law students See the Law School press release 

Karen Franklin has blogged on What We Do (& Do Not) Know About Jurors & Race See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Emotions in the Courtroom at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

James Goulding has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at Mean is Out blog See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI at The Jury Room blog See the blog post

Daniel Denis responds to Jason Barnes comment on Persuading with Probability See the response

Walter K. [@noblindfold] has blogged on Tattoos, Tolerance, Technology & TMI See the blog post

Jason Barnes has commented on Persuading with Probability See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Hate Crimes and Racial Slurs at Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Jaime and Kevin comment on East Texas Patent Trials See the comment

David Fish comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Tony Duncan has pointed readers of his blog to Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Daylight Atheism blog has posted on America Hates Atheists See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at idealawg blog See the blog post

Mark Bennett has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Defending People blog See the blog post

'Joe Attorney' has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles at Doing Justice blog See the blog post

Joe Markowitz has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Rita Handrich has pointed readers of The Jury Room blog to this issue of TJE See the blog post

John Mittelman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Victoria Ward has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has blogged on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the blog post

Jason Barnes comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Brian Patterson comments on Biggest Bully in the Room See the comment

Todd Schlossberg comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

SCOTUS blog references Beneath the Robes & Behind Closed Doors See the blog post

Marjorie Fargo has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Paul Scoptur has pointed readers of his blog, Scoptur's Law to A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the post

Elie Mystal has referenced Beneath The Robes & Behind Closed Doors in Non Sequiturs at Above the Law Blog See the post

Montgomery Delaney has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Mark Bennett has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles See the comment

Jessica Hoffman has commented on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister has blogged on Avoiding Problems During Jury Selection in the Age of Batson at Juries Blog See the post

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on A Courtroom Full of Reptiles is a Bad Idea See the comment

Steve Schlicht comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephen G. Schwarz has cited Jurors and Technology in Trial in a post at the Faraci Lange blog See the post

David Shackelford has cited America Hates Atheists at the Shark Attack blog See the blog

Groklaw cites Practical Tools for Staying Organized in Jury Selection & Voir Dire See the post

Doug Keene has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at The Jury Room blog See the post

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom See the comment

John Buntin has blogged on Rules Don't Apply to Me at 13th Floor blog See the post

Razib Khan has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Gene Expression blog See the post

Steven Gursten has blogged on Injured Body, Injured Mind See the blog post

Gribble the Munchkin comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stuart Bechman comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

science + religion TODAY has blogged on America Hates Atheists See the post

Hemant Mehta has blogged on America Hates Atheists at Friendly Atheist See the post

Stephanie West Allen blogs on Toying with Juror's Emotions at idealawg See the post

Marc Gray comments on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Stephanie West Allen blogs on The Rules Don't Apply to Me at idealawg See the post

Robin Hanson has cited America Hates Atheists in his blog Overcoming Bias See the post

LawyersUSAOnline has cited The Rules Don't Apply to Me See the link

Brian Patterson comments on Using Technology in Litigation See the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Using Technology in Litigation at his firm blog Court & Trial Technology See the post

'Anonymous Atheist' has commented on America Hates Atheists See the comment

Elaine Lewis comments on Goals of Witness Preparation See the comment

Charli Morris comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

David Shafer comments on "The Prep Question" See the comment

Lee Keller King has commented on Will It Hurt Me in Court See the comment

Doug Keene has blogged at The Jury Room on Sixteen Simple Rules See the blog post

Steve Pietrick has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Melissa Gomez has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Adam Benforado has commented on Law on Display via Situationist Blog See the comment

John Day has blogged at Day on Torts about Jurors & the Internet See the blog post

Rita Handrich has blogged at The Jury Room on Colorism See the blog post

Philip Cave has blogged at Court-Martial Trial Practice on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Dennis Elias has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has pointed his blog readers to this issue of The Jury Expert See Paul's blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

K_Yew has pointed his blog readers to 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Damages: The Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the blog post

Feminist Law Profs blog wants to know where the women are. We know where

Lawyers USA has written a piece featuring Katherine James and her article on Live Communication See the article

Steven G. Pietrick has commented on Preparing for the Prep Question See the comment

David Oliver at Mass Torts: State of the Art Blog has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Scott Henson of Grits for Breakfast has cited 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Julie Campanini has blogged on Out & Proud See the blog post

Grey Tesh sends readers of Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog post

Tyler Cowen sends his readers from Marginal Revolution blog to see 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See Tyler's blog

Forensic Focus Forums has begun a discussion on Law on Display See the forum posts

Book Forum has cited Don't Poke Scalia on their Omnivore page See the post

Book Forum has cited Jurors & the Internet on their Omnivore page See the post

Christina Spiesel comments on Ted Brooks' blog post regarding Law on Display See the comment

Susan Levy comments on Damages: Defense Attorney's Dilemma See the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Law on Display See the comment

Karen Franklin has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jurors and the Internet See the blog post

Publius comments on Enron to Broadcom See the comment

Judge John DiMotto references Jurors and the Internet on his blog See the blog

Ted Brooks has blogged on Law on Display See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on 16 Simple Rules for Better Jury Selection See the blog

Louisville Courier-Journal has published on article (Taser-death verdict challenged over juror's conduct) which references our Jurors & the Internet article See the Louisville Courier-Journal

Florida Bar Journal has published an article (Reining in Juror Misconduct) citing our Jurors & the Internet article See the Florida Bar Journal article

Howard Wasserman has blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at his Federal Courts blog See the blog

Ric Dexter has commented on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need See the comment

David Badertscher has blogged on Jurors & the Internet at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Phil Cave has blogged on Live Communication at his blog Court-Martial Trial Practice See the blog

Melissa M. Gomez has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on her blog at the Legal Intelligencer See the blog

Doug Keene has blogged on this issue of The Jury Expert at his firm blog: The Jury Room See the blog

Martin G. commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

E. Oliver commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Gregory Cusimano commented on Live Communication See the comment

Matt M. commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

W. Stuermer commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

David Schwartz commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Janet commented on Don't Poke Scalia See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on When Jurors Nod See the comment

Jason Barnes commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Thaddeus Hoffmeister blogged on Jurors and the Internet at his blog Juries See the blog

Adam Chandler blogged on Don't Poke Scalia at SCOTUS blog See the blog

Thaddeus Hoffmeister commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement at the Jury Box Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Jury Research for Settlement on his blog at Overland Consulting See the blog

T. Guthell, MD has commented on Jurors and the Internet See the comment

David Badertscher has listed our Table of Contents at his Criminal Law Library Blog See the blog

Sean Overland has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom See the blog

Joseph C. Markowitz has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Phyllis G. Pollack has blogged on Civil Case Mediation See the blog

Victoria Cooke has commented on Graphic Injury Photographs See the comment

Glenn Meyer has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Paul Silver has commented on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Arch Stanton comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Ted Brooks has blogged on Anthropomorphism in Technical Presentations See the blog post

Karen Franklin has blogged on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs See the blog post

Matthew McCusker comments on Civil Case Mediation See the comment

benezra1970 comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Wendy Saxon comments on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

L.L. Stewart commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

benezra1970 has commented on Gender and Assault Weapons See the comment

Phil Cave has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Doug Keene has blogged on Affirmative Defenses in Product Liability Litigation See the blog post

Vickie Pynchon has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Cheryl Lubin has commented on Civil Case Mediations See the comment

Anne Reed has blogged on The Jury Expert's September issue See the blog post

Paul Scoptur has blogged on Civil Case Mediations See the blog post

Kevin Boully has blogged on Gender & Assault Weapons See the blog post

Edward Schwartz has blogged on Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Ken Broda-Bahm has blogged on Jury Damage Awards in Recession See the blog post

Rita Handrich has commented on Hate Crimes & Racial Slurs Read the comment

Phillip Miller has blogged about Identifying Leaders See the blog post

Charli Morris comments on Impact of Graphic Injury Photographs Read the comment

Diane Levin has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Cameron Reed has blogged about Narcissism in Gen Y See the blog post

Stephanie West Allen has done a blog post on Observations in Civil Mediation See the blog post

Edward Schwartz comments on Will It Hurt Me in Court Read the comment

Cheryl Lubin comments on From the Conference Room to the Courtroom Read the comment

Jim Brock comments on Lights, Camera, Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Lights, Camera Action! Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Sean Overland comments on the Book Review of The Juror Factor Read the comment

Dennis Elias comments on Jury Damage Awards in Times of Recession Read the comment

Gayle Herde comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Bob Schiffmann comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Alison K. Bennett comments on Using Your EAR in Voir Dire Read the comment

Ted Brooks replies to a comment on Jurors and Technology Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Kelley Tobin comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Kacy Miller comments on Jurors and Technology in Trial Read the comment

Charli Morris comments on What Preparation Does Your Witness Need Read the comment

Carol Phillips comments on Gen Y & Narcissism Prevalence Read the comment

Diane Wyzga comments on Juror Stress Read the comment

Edward P. Schwartz comments on Turning Expert Witnesses Into Teachers Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Jason Barnes comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Phillip Miller comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ric Dexter comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Stacy Fergurson comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Turning Timelines Into Plotlines Read the comment

Rita Handrich comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Jeri Kagel's comment Read the response

George Kich comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Kacy Miller responds to comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Laura Rochelois comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Sonia Chopra comments on Grime & Punishment Read the comment

Bob Kaufman comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Steve Laird comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jeri Kagel comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Dave Zehner comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Sean Overland responds to Pat McEvoy's comment on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Brian Bornstein responds to Steven Gursten's comment on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Ted Brooks' comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ralph Mongeluzo comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Ted Brooks comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Diane Wyzga responds to Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Jason Barnes responds to Patrick Norha's comment on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Patrick Norha comments on Turning Timelines into Plotlines Read the comment

Douglas L. Keene comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Bruce A. Beal comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Ken Broda-Bahm comments on Keeping Secrets Read the comment

Pat McEvoy comments on Anti-Gay Bias in the Courtroom Read the comment

Steven Gursten comments on Injured Body, Injured Mind Read the comment

Philip Monte comments on Ethical Issues in Racial Profiling Read the comment

Valerie Hans comments on the book review: The American Jury.
Read the comment
Elaine Lewis comments on The Preparation of Narcissistic Witnesses.
Read the comment

 



by Desiree Adams Griffin, Emily Patty

Comments 1 | Rating

 

Emotions in the courtroom:

"Need for affect"

in juror decision-making

 

Desirée A. Griffin and Emily Patty

 


Desirée Adams Griffin is a Ph.D. student in the Psychology & Law concentration of the Clinical Psychology program at the University of Alabama. She is a member of Dr. Stanley Brodsky’s Witness Research Lab, and her primary research interests include the accurate assessment of defendant remorse and the role emotions play in legal decision-making. She also has professional interests in trial consultation, forensic assessment, and teaching. 


 Emily Patty is a Ph.D. student at Louisiana State University. She is studying school psychology and is professionally interested in the areas of remorse and relational aggression. She attended the University of Alabama for her undergraduate education, where she was a member of Dr. Stanley Brodsky’s Witness Research Lab and contributed to the research discussed in this article.  

 

 

"The law is reason, free from passion." Aristotle's declaration continues to guide the philosophy of our legal system, and it is expected a jury will weigh all evidence equally and without bias before rendering a verdict. However, emotions are intertwined with any human enterprise, particularly decision-making (Forgas, 1995; Kuvaas & Kaufmann, 2004). Despite a juror's honest attempt to not be swayed by emotion, some cases can be emotionally draining or attorneys might attempt to elicit emotional reactions from jury members to cloud their judgment. As such, when selecting a jury, it is important to consider individual differences in how one manages and uses one's emotions when making decisions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of emotions in legal decision-making and to discuss how the psychological construct of "need for affect" (NFA) can help trial consultants identify strike-worthy jurors.

 

The Role of Emotions in Decision-Making

 

Research suggests individuals frequently make decisions that are congruent with their mood-state (Forgas & Bower, 1988; Schwarz, 2000). Forgas and Bower (1988) posited that judgments are more likely to be affected by mood-congruent information when the target is complex, ambiguous, and there is no pre-existing evaluation of the target. Typically, this is the context in which a juror must make a decision about a defendant. A primary explanation for mood-congruent judgments is individuals recall material that is similar to the mood-state being experienced (Kuvaas & Kaufmann, 2004; Schwarz, 2000). Therefore, individuals are more likely to remember positive information for a target when in a good mood and negative information when in a bad mood (Forgas & Bower, 1987; Schwarz, 1990). For example, a juror who viewed gruesome pictures of a crime scene is likely to feel disgusted and/or angry and is subsequently more likely to remember case information that is not in favor of the defendant (i.e., the target of the decision-making) and to judge the defendant more negatively. Mood-congruency judgments can also be explained by the likelihood that an individual will directly attribute the cause of their current mood state to the target they are evaluating (Forgas, 1995). For example, if a juror received a promotion at work while serving on a jury, he or she might misattribute feelings of enthusiasm and happiness to the defendant, thus making a decision favoring the defendant.

 

Need for Affect in Judgments

 

Until this point, the information regarding how affect influences decisions has assumed all people have the same motivation for processing emotionally-laden information; however, this may not be the case. Just as some people are more motivated to think through issues and find more enjoyment from thinking (i.e., need for cognition), some people may be more motivated to approach emotion-inducing situations and to seek out emotions (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; Maio & Esses, 2001). Maio and Esses (2001) developed the need for affect (NFA) construct which is a personality variable defined as "the motivation to approach or avoid emotion-inducing situations" (p. 538). Using a measure they designed to assess NFA, they found that individuals with high NFA were more likely to approach emotional experiences and use emotions to help guide their behavior and judgments, whereas individuals with low NFA were motivated to avoid emotional experiences, especially when the emotions were intense and dangerous (Maio & Esses, 2001).

 

Maio and Esses' (2001) research suggests an emotion-approach tactic (i.e., High NFA) is related to mood intensity, willingness to explore emotions (particularly positive emotions), ability to understand and utilize emotions, and high need for cognition. Furthermore, individuals with an approach tactic were more willing to experience strong negative emotions than individuals who endorsed an emotion-avoidance tactic. An emotion-avoidance tactic (i.e., Low NFA) is related to difficulty identifying, describing, and expressing emotions as well as an ambivalence toward emotional expression. Furthermore, individuals endorsing low NFA were more likely to avoid experiencing negative emotions, particularly ones that were distressing and anxiety-arousing.

 

Additional research exploring how the NFA construct is related to decision-making found that individuals with high NFA remembered more information from an affect-based message than from a cognitive-based message (Haddock, Maio, Arnold & Huskinson, 2008). An affect-based message is one in which the primary persuasive tactic is to appeal to one's emotions and to generate an emotional response about an object. A cognitive-based message is one in which the primary persuasive tactic is to appeal to one's logic and to create new beliefs or ideas about an object. Moreover, individuals with high NFA recalled more information from an affect-based message than individuals with low NFA. Thus, the NFA construct appears to be a crucial concept in explaining how individuals process and respond to emotionally-laden information or emotional experiences.

 

The Role of NFA in a Legal Setting

 

Provided the integral role emotions play in decision-making, particularly when an individual is motivated to attend to the emotional components of an argument, we propose that NFA (Maio & Esses, 2001) can be used in a legal setting to help attorneys and trial consultants identify individual differences in how emotions influence jurors' attitudes and guide their decision-making. Although limited, prior research has shown the utility of the NFA construct, as measured by the NFA scale, in predicting verdict and sentencing decisions. The NFA scale is comprised of two-factors (emotional-approach and emotional-avoidance) and is a 26-item questionnaire with good internal reliability (α > .80).

 

An initial study examining the role of NFA in juror decision-making manipulated a defendant's level of remorse (i.e., remorseful vs. non-remorseful) in the context of the sentencing phase of a capital trial (Patty, Cramer, Adams, & Brodsky, 2009). Introductory psychology students at the University of Alabama provided a sentencing recommendation of either Life in Prison without Parole or the Death Penalty after viewing a video clip of the defendant exhibiting high and low levels of verbal and nonverbal remorse. Overall, mock-jurors' endorsement of high NFA was predictive of recommending a life sentence. In other words, the ability to predict whether a juror would recommend a life sentence increased as jurors endorsed higher scores on the "emotion-approach" factor of the NFA scale. A potential explanation for this finding is that mock-jurors were observing an emotional situation in which a defendant provided verbal and nonverbal accounts of remorse for his actions (an event with a positive mood valence), and jurors who were motivated to approach and process this emotional situation (i.e., individuals with high NFA) likely had related emotional experiences triggered. In support of the literature discussing mood-congruent judgments, jurors who were motivated to approach and process the positive emotional experience were primed to recall previous positive experiences and were likely to recommend the more "positive" sentencing recommendation of Life in Prison without Parole. Furthermore, this study revealed the "emotion-avoidance" factor on the NFA scale did not predict sentencing recommendation. This finding substantiates our initial explanation because individuals with low NFA were likely not motivated to utilize the emotional-stimuli (i.e., remorse) in their decision-making, and thus, there was no predisposition for their judgment to be mood-congruent.

 

A second study examining the role of NFA in legal decision-making investigated whether an individual's NFA would predict verdict decisions in a case that exposed jurors to emotionally-arousing evidence (Adams, Neal, Titcomb, & Griffin, 2010). It was hypothesized that after viewing graphic evidence (i.e., crime scene photos), jurors who endorsed high NFA would be more likely to experience a negative mood state and subsequently provide more guilty verdicts. Introductory psychology students at the University of Alabama viewed the video-recorded testimony of a mock-expert witness as well as multiple graphic images of the crime scene that contained blood and a dead body. Results revealed that participants who endorsed high NFA rated the defendant's likelihood of guilt significantly higher than individuals who endorsed low NFA. Similar to the explanation described for the previous study, it is likely that jurors who were motivated to attend to and process the emotionally-laden stimuli (i.e., individuals with high NFA) experienced negative emotions after viewing the graphic photographs (e.g., anger, sadness, disgust), and thus, they were primed to recall negative information about the case as well as negative past experiences. A mood-congruent judgment would be a guilty verdict.

 

Implementing NFA in a legal setting

 

This article has discussed the important role emotions play in decision-making, particularly within a legal setting; therefore, it is important to be aware of how jurors process and incorporate emotions in their judgments. To accomplish this, attorneys and trial consultants can use items from the NFA scale during jury selection. According to Brodsky (2009), social-psychological scales can be useful tools in trial consultation work because they provide questions that have been systematically developed and validated. Obtaining answers to items from a researched scale gives trial consultants and/or attorneys more meaningful information than answers obtained from self-developed questions because we know how well the items measure the content of interest as well as their limitations (Brodsky, 2009).

 

Similar to how items from the Need for Cognition scale are often used to identify jurors who are motivated to process complex arguments, items from the NFA scale can be incorporated into the voir dire process to identify jurors who are motivated to approach emotional information and rely on emotional stimuli to make decisions. Knowing such information about potential jurors can help attorneys strike high-risk jurors who might be manipulated easily by emotionally-laden arguments and case details. On the flip side, if an attorney has a case in which he is depending upon a strong emotional reaction to get a favorable judgment, identifying individuals with low NFA would be helpful when determining whom to strike.

 

For practical purposes and time constraints, an attorney or trial consultant would likely want to administer only select items of the NFA scale, as opposed to all of the questions. Depending upon the freedom granted to attorneys during the voir dire process, one can request the items be added to a supplemental juror questionnaire, incorporate the items into voir dire questioning, or submit questions to the judge to ask during voir dire. If the latter method is an attorney's only option for incorporating items into the voir dire process, it might help to provide an empirical explanation for why the questions are being submitted so the judge has a better understanding of the context and purpose of the questions.

 

If any attorney's goal is to strike jurors who would be inclined to rely on feelings and incorporate emotional stimuli into their decision-making, then the following items from the NFA scale would provide the most reliable and construct-valid information:

 

1)It is important for me to be in touch with my feelings.

 

2)I think that it is important to explore my feelings.

 

3)I am a very emotional person.

 

4)It is important for me to know how others are feeling.

 

5)Emotions help people get along in life.

 

6)Strong emotions are generally beneficial.

 

Each item is answered on a seven-point scale of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree with a neutral option of Neither. Stronger agreement with the aforementioned items is representative of individuals with high NFA who are motivated to approach emotions and incorporate emotions into their decision-making; therefore, attorneys will want to strike jurors who express strong agreement with these items.

 

If an attorney's goal is to strike jurors who avoid emotions and do not rely on feelings to make decisions, then the following items from the NFA scale would provide the most reliable and valid information:

 

1) I find strong emotions overwhelming and therefore try to avoid them.

 

2) Emotions are dangerous - they tend to get me into to situations I would rather avoid.

 

3) I would prefer not to experience either the lows or highs of emotion.

 

4) If I reflect only on my past, I see that I tend to be afraid of feeling emotions.

 

5) I would love to be like "Mr. Spock," who is totally logical and experiences little emotion.

 

6) I have trouble telling the people who are close to me that I love them.

 

These items are answered in the same manner as the other items. Stronger agreement with these items is representative of individuals with low NFA who are motivated to avoid emotions and are not likely to rely on feelings to make decisions; therefore, attorneys will want to strike jurors who express strong agreement with these items.

 

In addition to assisting with jury selection, knowing whether the jury is comprised of individuals with primarily a high or low NFA can inform attorneys or trial consultants about appropriate trial strategies. For example, if the jury has a majority of individuals with a high NFA, a prosecuting attorney will want to maximize the impact of any emotional evidence that evokes a negative mood state within the jurors. In that same situation, a defense attorney would know to be prepared to mitigate such emotionally-evocative evidence while at the same time proffer any evidence that might produce positive emotions among the jury.

 

Summary

 

Although Aristotle described a legal system free of passion and prejudice, individuals reference both cognitions and emotions when making legal decisions. As such, attorneys need to account for individual differences in how jurors process and incorporate emotional information into their judgments. This article described the psychological construct of need for affect (NFA) and presented research that suggests it can be helpful in identifying jurors who are most and least likely to approach emotional situations and integrate emotions when making decisions. Practically, items from the NFA scale developed by Maio and Esses (2001) can be used during the voir dire process to determine which jurors are most strike-worthy and to subsequently develop trial strategies that will be best received by the selected jury.


 

References

 

Adams, D., Neal, T., Titcomb, C., & Griffin, M. (2010, March). Let emotions be the judge: Graphic evidence and need for affect in legal decision-making. Poster session presented the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

 

Brodsky, S. (2009). Principles and practice of trial consultation. New York: Guilford Press.

 

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

 

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.

 

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 53-60.

 

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Affect in social judgments. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 125-145.

 

Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H., & Krantz, S. (1984). The influence of mood on perceptions of social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 497-513.

 

Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K, & Huskinson, T. (2008) Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769-778.

 

Kuvaas, B., & Kaufmann, G. (2004). Impact of mood, framing, and need for cognition on decision makers' recall and confidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 59-74.

 

Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583-615.

 

Patty, E., Cramer, R., Adams, D., & Brodsky, S. (2009). Verbal and nonverbal indicators of defendant remorse and resulting impact on sentencing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

 

Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions. In R.M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford Press.

 

Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 433-440.

 

 

 

Citation for this article: The Jury Expert, 2010, 22(4), 61-66.

 

Full Issue   Full Article   Send to a Friend   Rate this article:


Doug Keene wrote:
Jul-26-2010
Doug Keene has done a blog post on this article: Doug's blog post

Comment on this article:


(Optional. We will not publish your email address here or elsewhere.)


Maximum 5,000 characters. Character count: 0

When you submit this message, you give The Jury Expert permission to publish it on the web. As this is a professional journal, editors will publish comments that are courteous and respectful (even when in disagreement). Thanks for participating in the TJE community!


Publication Information

The Jury Expert is now on Twitter (@thejuryexpert)! Follow us for daily news relevant to improving litigation advocacy, understanding jury behavior, resources that aid your practice, and sometimes, stuff that's just plain fun.
http://www.twitter.com/thejuryexpert

The Jury Expert [ISSN: 1943-2208] is published bimonthly by the:
American Society of Trial Consultants
1941 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: (410) 560-7949
Fax: (410) 560-2563
http://www.astcweb.org/

Editors of The Jury Expert
Rita R. Handrich, PhD — Editor

Kevin R. Boully, PhD — Associate Editor
 

The Jury Expert logo was designed in 2008 by:
Vince Plunkett of Persuasium Consulting

The publisher of The Jury Expert is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. The accuracy of the content of articles included in The Jury Expert is the sole responsibility of the authors, not of the publication. The publisher makes no warranty regarding the accuracy, integrity, or continued validity of the facts, allegations or legal authorities contained in any public record documents provided herein. Authors retain copyright of their written work. Author supplied graphics which illustrate technology or design ideas are considered the intellectual property of those authors. The Jury Expert itself is copyrighted by the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC).