Empathy, Social Dominance Orientation, Mortality Salience, and Perceptions of a Criminal Defendant

Abstract

In two studies, participants completed measures of trait empathy and social dominance orientation, read a summary of a hit and run trial, and provided reactions to the case. In Study 1, the three randomly assigned conditions included a prompt to empathize with the victims, the empathy prompt with a mortality salience manipulation, and a control condition. Participants high in trait empathy were harsher in their judgments of the defendant than were low empathy participants, particularly after having read the mortality salience prompt. The results indicated that mortality salience had triggered personality differences. Participants high in social dominance assigned harsher sentences across conditions. Study 2 involved the same paradigm, but the prompts were presented on behalf of the defendant. Despite the pro-defendant slant, the pattern of results was similar to Study 1. Differences by trait empathy were more apparent among participants experiencing mortality salience, and social dominance was related to sentence choices. There were no indications in either study of mortality salience increasing bias against defendants in general or increasing racial bias.

The Impact of Applicants’ Weight and Education About Obesity on Applicant Ratings

“…Others present descriptions of defendants or fictional trials, in print or via video, to participants, and measure their judgments about the defendant and about the crime itself (cf. Abwender & Hough, 2001;Crawley & Suarez, 2016;Gordon, Bindrim, McNicholas, & Walden, 1988;MuellerJohnson & Dhami, 2010;Plumm & Terrance, 2009). Such participants may respond individually or in groups, acting as mock juries.…”

“…Interestingly, although race differences in treatment are quite apparent in examinations of differential treatment in actual legal records including police contacts (Crutchfield, Skinner, Haggerty, McGlynn, & Catalano, 2012) and sentencing records (ACLU, 2014;Mustard, 2001), race effects do not always appear in lab studies on the impact of race when judging defendants (cf. Crawley & Suarez, 2016).…”

“…In addi tion to defendant age, researchers have focused on such extralegal factors as the presentation of remorse by offenders (Corwin, Cramer, Griffin, & Brodsky, 2012;Everett & Nienstedt, 1999), and the defendant's personal appearance including physical attractiveness (Abwender & Hough, 2001;Sigall & Ostrove, 1975), smiling (Abel & Watters, 2005), style of dress (Fontaine & Kiger, 1978), and tattoos (Funk & Todorov, 2013). Pretrial publicity (Hope, Memon, & McGeorge, 2004;Kovera, 2002;Ruva & Guenther, 2015;Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & JimenezLorente, 1999) and juror characteristics such as attitudes toward the death penalty, empathy, and type of religious beliefs (Crawley & Suarez, 2016;Fitzgerald & Ellsworth, 1984;Miller, Maskaly, Peoples, & Sigillo, 2014) have all been subjects of psychological study regarding perceptions of criminal defendants.…”

Contributions of Neuroscience to a New Empathy Epistemology: Implications for Developmental Training

“…Physicians were found to develop empathy in the presence of role models and experiential opportunities, rather than through Socratic exposure (Marcum, 2013). Further, the use of empathic measures in criminal justice and in court case observations has gained credibility (Crawley & Suarez, 2016). Unfortunately, laboratory learning of communication skills has not translated well into field practice.…”