The Effects of Limiting Instructions about Emotional Evidence Depend on Need for Cognition

Abstract

Although limiting instructions are provided for specific evidence that may have a negative impact on jurors' decision-making, there may be individual differences in the effectiveness of the instructions. The individual predisposition towards the enjoyment of cognitive activity is called need for cognition (NFC), and individuals high in NFC tend to seek out and engage in cognitive activity spontaneously. The present study examined the influence of NFC and limiting instructions about emotional evidence on mock jurors' legal decision-making. The results showed that mock jurors who were lower in NFC were more likely to render a guilty decision than those higher in NFC, and that the tendency was more salient when the limiting instructions were presented compared with when they were not presented. Similar results were found in regard to sentencing decisions and arousal of anger. A partial mediation effect of anger was found between NFC and verdict decisions. The influence of NFC on the limiting instructions and legal decision-making as well as the effect of anger on the decision is discussed in relation to these results.

The Impact of Experienced and Expressed Emotion on Legal Factfinding

“…Negative moral emotions like anger, disgust, and moral outrage, in particular, are correlated with more guilty and liability verdicts (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty 2006, Matsuo & Itoh 2017, Salerno 2017, Salerno & Peter-Hagene 2013, Salerno & Phalen 2019a) and harsher punishments (e.g., Georges et al 2013, Nuñez et al 2015. Positive moral emotions, such as sympathy or empathy for victims, are correlated with decreased convictions (Jones et al 2020), whereas empathy for defendants can increase convictions (Archer et al 1979, Haegerich & Bottoms 2000 Emotionally evocative evidence can elicit these moral emotions in jurors, which are, in turn, associated with harsher verdicts and punishment.…”

“…More specifically, gruesome photographs increase guilty verdicts (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty 2006, Edwards & Mottarella 2014, Matsuo & Itoh 2017, Salerno 2017, liability verdicts (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty 2011, Oliver & Griffitt 1976, harsher sentences (Finkelstein & Bastounis 2010), and damage awards (Oliver & Griffitt 1976, Whalen & Blanchard 1982.…”

“…However, it is ineffective, can backfire by intensifying emotions (Gross & Levenson 1993, Wegner 2009, and can deplete cognitive resources and hurt memory for evidence (Engelken & Peter-Hagene 2020, Maroney & Gross 2014. Indeed, jury instructions to disregard emotional testimony have been ineffective (Matsuo & Itoh 2017) or even amplified its impact (Edwards & Bryan 1997).…”