Portions of this paper were presented at the March 1998 biennial American Psychology-Law Society meetings in Redondo Beach, California. The time and energy of Lindsay Gilbert, Christine Lee, Victoria Munoz, and Molly McCabe facilitated this work. In addition, I would like to thank Jeff Greenberg, Bruce Sales, Tamra Pearson ?Estrce, Varda Shoham, and Gary Schwartz for their insightful feedback.
Head Over the Heart or Heart Over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making1
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 32, Issue 12, pages 2526–2553, December 2002
How to Cite
Lieberman, J. D. (2002), Head Over the Heart or Heart Over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 2526–2553. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Cognitive experiential self-theory (CEST), which maintains that information can be processed in both an experiential (emotional) and a rational mode. Experiential processing fosters a reliance on heuristic cues. Previous research has demonstrated that juror verdicts are influenced by a variety of extralegal heuristics, including a defendant attractiveness cue. This research examined whether experiential processing would produce a defendant-attractiveness/leniency effect. Before awarding monetary damages in a civil trial, participants were motivated to think either rationally or experientially and were shown a photograph of either a high- or low-attractiveness defendant. Experiential mode participants awarded significantly lower damages to the plaintiff when the defendant was attractive, but the attractiveness-leniency effect was not operative for rational mode participants.