CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 245Jury Decision Making ProcessesLegal processes and jurisprudenceDeception detection and forensic psychology

Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments.

Devine, Dennis J., Caughlin, David E.·2014·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
DOI 10.1037/law0000006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many people believe the personal attributes of trial participants substantially impact the decisions of juries, and considerable research has examined the extent to which characteristics of jurors and defendants are associated with juror judgments of guilt. To assess this broad issue, we meta-analyzed empirical studies examining the relationship between 11 juror and defendant characteristics and individual-level judgments of guilt in criminal trial contexts. Three potential moderator variables were also investigated: participant type, outcome type, and case type. In total, 464 effects were obtained from 272 published and unpublished studies. The 11 focal characteristics yielded sample-weighted mean correlations ranging from zero to .22 in magnitude, with the strongest overall relationships emerging for defendant socioeconomic status (.11), defendant criminal record (.12), juror authoritarianism (.17), and juror trust in the legal system (.22). There was, however, substantial evidence of moderation for 10 of the 11 characteristics, suggesting their overall relationships vary according to one or more other variables. Moderator analyses revealed little support for participant type, some support for outcome type, and good support for case type with regard to their ability to explain variation in the observed effects. Overall, several juror and defendant characteristics were associated strongly enough with guilt judgments to warrant the attention of scholars and legal practitioners, and the results of this work add to our understanding of extralegal bias and juror decision making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/law0000006

Cites

287 of 287 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • White jurors are more likely to convict and allocate more punitive sentences for Black and Latinx defendants than White defendants.

    “Mock trial studies also indicate that White jurors -who are predominant in the system (Equal Justice Initiative, 2021) -are more likely to convict and allocate more punitive sentences for Black and Latinx defendants than White defendants”

    From A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. (2022) · cites this paper as Devine & Caughlin, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 288 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E.
Affiliations
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
ORCID
Caughlin, David E.
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-05
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
109-134
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
DOI
10.1037/law0000006
OpenAlex
W2163275922
Cited by
245
References
288
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
210.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
guilt judgments, jury decision-making, defendant characteristics, trust in the legal system, criminal trials, jury verdicts, case types

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review