Studied by 0 people
Lecture 9
blank of a rational juror may not be realistic
court expectations
blank biases can be hard to stop
emotional
Mechanisms of Emotion
Affective forecasting
Affect as feedback
Affect as cognitive appraisal
Immediate emotion
Disgust-driven moral judgements
Emotion regulation
Bill Cosby (2017) Sexual Assault Trial
Affective Forecasting Research - Gilbert et al. (1998) resulted in?
Overestimation of affective response
overestimate how a bad outcome is gonna make us feel (vice versa)
overestimate emotions
Reasons for Overestimation - Gilbert et al. (1998)
Overestimate duration and intensity
Underestimate ability to cope
Ex: final verdict is not guilty when we expected guilty; we tend to be very upset
if we here the words not guilty we’ll be very upset but we actually underestimate how we actually cope with things
Affective Forecasting and the Cosby Trial
expect to feel good or bad if he is found innocent
directed them to feeling guilty by putting a star in prison
may direct them to feel guilty that the victim is not get the justice
you will feel bad for the victim if the defendant is found not guilty
if cosby is being attacked by society and being sentenced into prison; you may feel bad
redirect your emotions to the not guilty
haven’t felt the emotion yet
Two processing systems of Affect as Feedback
System I (affective and heuristic)
System II (deliberate and analytical)
Affective as Feedback Research - Huntsinger et al. (2014)
Judgements start at system I
Positive mood → Stick with System I
Negative mood → switch to System II
taking a step back to critically think about what happened and why you may be feeling that way
Positive mood → Stick with System blank
1
Negative mood → Switch to System blank
2
Affective as Feedback and the Cosby Trial
will go first into system 1
however there are some people who will go into system 2
courts and judges tell them/expect them to
based on their own biases
jurors emotional responses will either reinforce them into continue using system 1 or switch to system 2
can switch back and forth
Affect as Cognitive Appraisal Research - Lerner et al. (2015); Tiedens & Linton (2001)
Anger → heuristic processing
force us into swift heuristic judgment
force us into system 1
tend to make risky decisions
jumping to conclusion - directing blame onto the defendant
attributing guilty to suspect
Reading Case Vignette
jurors who were angry perceived a greated intent within the defendant
assignmend more control to the defendant
acted more punitively to defenant'; given harsher punishment
Fear/sadness → deliberate and analytical processing
pushes them into system 2
less risky decisions; taking information into account
more deliberate with decisions
Sad Mock Jurors
were able to identify inconsistencies in statements in comparison to neutral jurors
because they felt sad they switched into system 2
neutral jurors are most likely in system 1
The same stimulus can illicit different blank
emotions
Affect as Cognitive Appraisal and the Cosby Trial
blank processing provides automatic emotional determinants on risk assessment and moral social judgement
System I
Immediate Emotion Research - Finucane et al. (2000)
Emotion alters how the relationship between risks and benefits is perceived
Positive mood → less risk, more benefit
Negative mood → more risk, less benefit
Immediate Emotion Research - Dasgupta et al. (2009)
Enhancement of implicit biases
Ex: white people who experience negative emotions from POC (black, arab, hispanic etc.)
Ex: seeing a hispanic down the street may cause more fear
enhancing stereotypes
Immediate Emotion and the Cosby Trial
juror will hear info and how they immediately/instinctually respond
if they experience intense anger after hearing the SA it will trigger an immediate affective response
inflated risk of acquittal
immediate response is guiding how risky or beneficial their decisions will impact the outcome
Disgust-driven Moral Judgements Research - Nunez et al. (2015)
Emotional reactions to violated norms → influence of juror decisions
Anger/Disgust → increase death sentence convictions
triggering moral judgements
more willing to assign the death penalty
Disgust-driven Moral Judgements Research - Bastian et al. (2013)
Anger and disgust are highly correlated emotions
will often co-occur
if you experience both you will be more severe in punishments
Disgust/Anger → moral outrage → more sever punishments
Disgust-driven Moral Judgements and the Cosby Trial
if there were jurors who reacted more emotionally and anger/disgust they will see that a moral judgmenet has been violated
would find him more guilty
how certain emotions are tied together and that will determine how punitive they are towards the defendant
Emotion Regulation Research - Feinberg et al. (2012)
Cognitive reappraisal increases reliance on deliberation
if we are able to regulate our emotions we are better able to regulate what is going on in system 1 it then turns into system 2
Increases use of system II processing
Emotion Regulation Research - Kligyte et al. (2013)
Cognitive reappraisal → limited influence of anger
if you’re able to control your anger you will be to take yourself out of that mindset
putting more attentions towards the facts of the case
Emotion Regulation and the Cosby Trial
may feel immediate anger but being aware that it is skewing their decision making
Expectation of the Court
Jurors are neutral fact finders
Not to be influenced by emotion
Role of Emotion
Can impact processing of information
Can influence decision-making
Emotion Provoking Aspects of Trial - Example
victim impact statement
