Judgement and memory of a criminal act: the effects of stereotypes and cognitive load

Abstract

The study investigated participants' judgements of the defendant's guilt, severity of punishment and memory of information concerning a crime presented earlier, as a function of activated stereotype (positive versus negative) and cognitive load (i.e. self‐paced versus quick processing pace). As hypothesized, it was found that judgement of guilt, punishment and memory were affected by the activated stereotype only under high‐load conditions. Under these conditions, a negative stereotype of the defendant evoked higher estimates of guilt, harsher punishment and better memory of incriminating evidence than a positive stereotype, while there was no effect of stereotype valence in the low‐load condition. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…For instance, two studies have found just the opposite as expected: nullifi cation instructions increased guilty verdicts (Horowitz, 1985(Horowitz, , 1988. Further, while previous research (Horowitz, 1985 ;Van Dyke, 1970 ) found that nullifi cation had no effect on morally unambiguous crimes (e.g., murder), it suggests that in ambiguous crimes the jury might be biased by characteristics of the defendant or the case. For instance, nullifi cation can bias juries against defendants who euthanized either sympathetic victims (Horowitz et al, 2006 ) or unsympathetic victims (Kerr et al, 2008 ).…”

Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness.

“…Yet while it is easy to espouse high-minded ideals of love and harmony with all individuals, it is often quite difficult to implement them. The process of impression formation can proceed spontaneously and without conscious effort (Todorov & Uleman, 2003), and in situations of cognitive load, for example, resources may not be available to monitor and control the expression of more automatic evaluative responses (Van Knippenberg, Dijksterhuis, & Vermeulen, 1999). Furthermore, although external, stimulus-driven cues (such as category membership or descriptions of a person's moral behavior) can quickly create implicit evaluations (Castelli, Zogmaister, Smith, & Arcuri, 2004), it is less clear that automatic affective responses can be as easily manufactured through top-down, intentionally controlled processes.…”

Stereotypes: A source of bias in affective and empathic forecasting

“…The role of empathic and affective forecasts on intergroup interactions may become even more complex considering that majority group members often experience anxiety and impairment of executive function when interacting with minorities (see Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005; Trawalter & Richeson, 2006). It is possible that empathic forecasts rely even more strongly on group stereotypes when the forecaster is cognitively depleted (Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994; van Knippenberg, Dijksterhuis, & Vermeulen, 1999) and especially when he or she is trying to inhibit stereotypic thoughts (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). Clearly, the benefits or drawbacks of stereotypic influences on social behavior depend on the context and the target of those behaviors, but the current research sheds light on the cognitive processes that may underlie discriminatory behavior in intergroup interactions.…”