The Effects of Emotional Provocation on an Individual’s Perception of A Criminal

1. The Effects of Emotional Provocation on an Individual’s Perception of A Criminal Natasha Guffey Kit Riddle PSY 220 Winter 2009

2. Introduction • Do the descriptions of a crime influence how the public judges the criminal? • Research by Tsoudis & Smith-Lovin (2001) indicates that “negative” associations to a person will create a “negative” persona for that person. • Manipulated the description of both victim and suspect • How do emotion-evoking words effect how an individual perceives the guilt of a criminal suspect?

3. Introduction • Many extra-legal factors influence jurors’ perception of a suspect. • Socio-economic status (Freeman, 2006) • Physical attractiveness (Abel & Watters, 2005) • Previous record (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997) • Age (Scott, Reppucci, Antonishak & DeGennaro, 2006) • Another extra-legal factor that may influence jurors’ perception is the way the crime is described by either the prosecutor or the defense attorney.

4. Manipulating the Crime: Affect Control Theory • Affect Control Theory • Use of language with negative connotations to manipulate subjects’ perceptions of individuals (Tsoudis, 2000) • A "negative" association towards an individual- such as a criminal showing no remorse, a victim seeming unaffected by the crime- will produce a corresponding negative opinion in the jury member (Tsoudis & Smith-Lovin, 2001)

5. Affect Control Theory • In this study, we altered how one crime was described in order to observe how subjects reacted to the leading statements. • “How guilty do you think the suspect is?” • “What punishment would you administer the suspect based on the guilt rating?”

6. Guilt and Punishment • How is guilt related to punishment? • Do people punish criminals more harshly when they consider them to be more guilty? • Criminals are punished more harshly when the victim is female (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). • More heinous crimes are given harsher punishments on average (Hendrick & Shaffer, 1975; as cited in Bornstein & Nemeth, 1999).

7. Our Hypothesis • By manipulating descriptions of a crime and using affect control theory, we believe that subjects who are exposed to an emotion evoking description of a crime will both rate the suspect with a higher guilt and a more severe punishment then those subjects who are not in the emotion evoking description group.

8. Participants • 18 participants • 56% female • 94% Caucasian • Ages ranged from 18-22 • Convenience sample at Hanover College • Psychology students a majority

9. Procedure & Materials • Informed consent • Participants told they were participating in an experiment designed to study jurors’ decision making. • Randomly assigned to study conditions • Control, impassioned, case file groups • Given different descriptions of the same crime • Questionnaire and Picture given • Demographics questions • 1-7 Likert scale evaluating how guilty participants considered the suspect to be • Open-ended question about what punishment should be administered to the suspect.

10. Meet Vincent • Participants given this photo in order for them to visualize the suspect of the crime.

11. Crime Descriptions • Control group: • Joy McIntosh, 28, Caucasian female, found dead in alley behind Kroger’s supermarket, 2:43 am, Wednesday, Jan 21. Body reported to police by passerby. Cause of death ruled by medical examiner: multiple stab wounds. Any eyewitness information, please report to Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, 812-555-3432

12. Crime Descriptions • “Case File” group • Body reported behind Kroger’s Supermarket, 2:43 am, 1/21. Caller identified as Terrence Paulson, 43. Alibi of Terrence corroborated. Body identified as Joy McIntosh, 28, of 200 block of West Main Street. Coroner dispatched to scene, declared time of death to be 4-5 hours prior, between 9-10 pm, 1/20. Victim’s wallet was empty, no credit cards or cash inside. Gold cross belonging to victim also stolen, as reported by victim’s spouse. Cause of death reported by medical examiner to be blood loss from multiple stab wounds. 14 stab wounds present on body, no DNA found. No signs of sexual trauma. Defensive wounds present on arms and hands. Trace evidence found on body may be used to identify suspect. Shoe print near scene of men’s size 11 training shoe. No eyewitnesses have come forward at this time. Victim to be interred in local cemetery.

13. Crime Descriptions • “Impassioned” group • Joy McIntosh was a dedicated wife and mother, who after going out to get groceries for her three-year old daughter Anna, was brutally murdered. Her body was left by the killer behind the very supermarket Joy had visited that night. According to police reports, Joy had defensive wounds from trying to fight off the evil attacker who killed her. Police have no suspects in custody, nor do they have any leads on who could have committed such a horrible act. Tyler McIntosh, Joy’s husband and high-school sweetheart, sent out a plea to the public for assistance in finding his beloved wife’s brutal killer. ‘Please, anyone who knows who could have done this, please go to the police,’ Mr. McIntosh said in his TV speech. ‘Joy was a good person, with a good heart. Anyone who could have taken the life of such a sweet, wonderful woman is depraved and we must get them off the street. I beg of anyone with information, please call or go to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.’

14. Results • Impassioned group expected to find the suspect to be more guilty and to punish the suspect more harshly than control and case file groups. • Case file group, in actuality, found the suspect to be more guilty and gave him harsher punishments. However, the data was not statistically significant. • Control group behaved as expected.

15. Figure 1. Mean guilt rating across conditions 

16. Effects of condition on guilt • Case file group (M= 4.17, SD= 1.329) considered the suspect to be slightly more guilty than the impassioned (M= 4.00, SD= 2.608) and control (M= 3.33, SD= 2.608) groups. • One-way ANOVA did not find this difference to be significant and there was no main effect of condition on guilt rating, F(2,15) =.312, p= .737.

17. Figure 2. Mean punishment across conditions

18. Effects of condition on punishment • Again, the case file group (M= 2.33, SD= .837) scored slightly higher on the 1-3 punishment scale than the impassioned (M= 2.33, SD= .816) and control group (M= 2.17, SD= .983). • There was no main effect of condition on punishment of the suspect, F (2, 15)= .214, p= .810.

19. Effects of guilt on punishment • Moderately strong correlation between guilt and punishment, r= .465, but this correlation was only marginally significant, p= .069.

20. Figure 3. Mean punishment between genders

21. Gender effects • Gender differences were not originally expected. • Females (M= 3.92, SD= .2065) considered the suspect slightly more guilty than males (M= 3.67, SD= 1.506). This difference was not statistically significant, t(16)= .262, p= .797. • Males (M= 2.67, SD= .516)punished the suspect slightly more harshly than females (M= 2.17, SD= .937). Equal variances not assumed, an independent t- test did not find this difference to be significant, t(15.69)= 1.458, p= .165.

22. Discussion • Original hypothesis stated that individuals exposed to leading statements and emotion-evoking descriptions would consider the suspect to be more guilty than individuals who were given more neutral descriptions. • Based on the results of this study, our hypothesis cannot be supported.

23. Discussion • Problems associated with this study • Small sample size (N= 18) • Subjects’ misunderstanding of instructions given to them • Differences in guilt-phase and penalty-phase of actual trials; no difference in this study • (White, 1987) • Lack of solid evidence given to subjects

24. Discussion • Kassin and Garfield (1991) conducted a study in which participants were shown videos of a crime. The study found that viewing the crime had little effect on the participants’ opinions in the mock trial. • Due to background of the subjects, the impassioned group may have simply been unaffected by the leading statements in the descriptions.

25. Discussion • Physical attractiveness of suspect, socio-economic status, race, may have effect on how guilty the suspects considered him • (Mazzella and Feingold, 1994) • The photo used in this study was an advertisement for a men’s clothing store. • Subjects primarily upper-middle-class Caucasian females who may not have associated the suspect’s appearance with the crime committed.

26. Discussion • The “case file” group may have had a stronger opinion about the guilt of the suspect because more college-aged students have been exposed to the justice system and its process than in earlier years. With increased knowledge, the subjects of this study may have been naturally biased against any description that did not provide adequate evidence for the crime committed.

27. Future directions • If we did this again, we would change the setting of the study into a mock-trial situation (ie, more formal, use of confederates, etc) • Offer more evidence • Use multiple suspects for different groups • Lower socio-economic status, less attractive, differing race, gender • Change how guilt and punishment stages are presented. • Get more background information about subjects • Personal crime experience, any media exposure to crime, etc

28. Conclusion • Based on the findings of this study, emotionally provoking descriptions of a crime do not have a significant effect on the opinions of jury members. • It is important to understand what role words and emotion plays in a criminal trial. If jury members were easily swayed by emotion, our Justice system is not just and needs an overhaul.