527170 research-article2014

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514527170Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceWevodau et al.

Article

Why the Impact? Negative Affective Change as a Mediator of the Effects of Victim Impact Statements

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2014, Vol. 29(16) 2884­–2903 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514527170 jiv.sagepub.com

Amy L. Wevodau,1 Robert J. Cramer,1 Andre Kehn,2 and John W. Clark III3

Abstract Victim impact statements (VISs) represent a contentious legal and psychological point of debate. Current knowledge concerning the influence of VISs on jurors’ emotional states and views of offenders is unclear. Using a sexual assault case, the present study attempted to disentangle these points of debate in the body of existing literature by (a) examining the direct influences of the presence of a VIS and juror Need for Affect (NFA) on sentencing recommendations, (b) assessing overall negative affective change as a mediating mechanism of these predictors, and (c) if mediation was present, identifying specific negative emotions that explain the effects of negative affective change. Results showed that presence of a VIS and a greater proclivity to approach emotions were associated with significantly greater sentencing recommendations. Moreover, change in negative affect mediated the effects of NFA approach and VIS exposure. Examination of changes in specific negative emotions revealed that increases in being upset and nervous mediated the impact of VIS condition; in addition, increases in

1Sam

Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA 3University of Texas at Tyler, USA 2University

Corresponding Author: Amy L. Wevodau, Department of Psychology, Sam Houston State University, P.O. Box 2210, Huntsville, TX 77340-2210, USA. Email: [email protected]

Wevodau et al.

2885

hostility mediated the effect of NFA approach. Results are discussed with regard to emotion-based decision making of potential jurors, applications to trial process, and future research in the area. Keywords victim impact statements, need for affect, negative affect, sentencing, hostility For centuries, passion and reason have been considered antithetical. This conviction still permeates the American legal system that aims to eliminate, or at least minimize, the influence of emotion on legal outcomes (Blumenthal, 2005). However, the evolving consensus among social and biological sciences is that emotion and reason are intractably and bi-directionally linked (Fox, 2008). Today, researchers agree that affective and cognitive processes are coupled at all stages of processing, influencing attention allocation, information processing, memory formation, decision making, and social judgments (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994; Fox, 2008; Tiedens, 2001). In fact, recent research indicates emotions may be an essential component in moral decision making (Salerno & Bottoms, 2009). Following this integrative trend, legal scholars have given increasing attention to the role of emotion, which has emerged as a meaningful element in several recent theories of legal decision making (see Blumenthal, 2005; Bornstein & Weiner, 2010 reviews for a synopsis of literature examining the influence of emotion-based decision making on legal decisions). The current article addresses one instance in which the effect of emotion on decision making is particularly salient; that of the influence of victim impact statements (VISs) on legal decision making. Given some of the more prevalent criticisms of VISs—namely, that they promote juror emotionality and irrational decision making (e.g., Myers & Greene, 2004)—this article considers the influence of jurors’ affective state on sentencing decisions in the presence of a VIS in a sexual assault trial situation. As such, we briefly review the role of affect in decision making as well as the current state of VIS research.

Affect and Decision Making Early theories regarding the influence of affect on decision making focused largely on the general valence (i.e., the inherent overall positive or negative quality) of emotions (Fox, 2008). More recently, researchers have lamented that although straightforward and parsimonious, strictly valence-based

2886

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

approaches to explaining the affect–decision making relationship are inadequate (Bodenhausen et al., 1994; Lerner & Keltner, 2000). As such, the contemporary body of emotion science research evaluating the influence of emotion on decision making has evolved to focus on outcomes associated with specific emotions and emotional components. For instance, Smith and Ellsworth (1985) proposed six dimensions they believed characterized all emotions, namely, pleasantness, anticipated effort, certainty, attentional activity, self–other responsibility, and situational control. Subsequent research has supported the contention that emotions were multi-faceted, including indications that discrete emotions are related to unique physiological correlates (Levenson, 1992) and facial expression patterns (Ekman, 1993), as well as mediation through distinct neuroanatomical and neurochemical pathways (Fox, 2008). In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused on identifying cognitive pathways and behavioral outcomes associated with discrete emotions. Presently relevant are findings regarding anger and sadness, emotions likely to be elicited by a VIS. Although both considerednegatively valenced, research suggest they may uniquely influence decision making. For instance, anger has been linked to impulsive, poorly reasoned, and punitive decision making whereas sadness appears to promote systematic and detail-oriented information processing (Bodenhausen et al., 1994; Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Tiedens, 2001; Wiener, Bornstein, & Voss, 2006). Similarly, anger contributes to dispositional attributions whereas sadness is related to situational attributions (Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993). Another recent trend in the affect–decision making literature is examination of individual difference factors related to emotional processing. One individual difference factor that has received increasing attention in the legal decision-making arena is the need for affect (NFA). Introduced in 2001 by Maio and Esses, NFA was conceptualized as one’s general proclivity to approach and avoid emotions and emotion-inducing situations. The pair hypothesized that people differed in their motivation to process and experience emotions, particularly poignant emotions, and that these differences were stable enough to be considered an enduring personality trait (Maio & Esses, 2001). Those high in NFA were thought to more often seek out emotionally evocative experiences, process emotional material more deeply, and incorporate emotions more automatically and thoroughly into their decision making (Maio & Esses, 2001). Central to the present study, research suggests NFA may be useful in predicting mock jurors’ sentencing decisions and perceptions of defendants’ and victims’ blameworthiness (Corwin, Cramer, Griffin, & Brodsky, 2012; Cramer et al., 2013; Stroud, Cramer, & Miller, 2014).

Wevodau et al.

2887

VISs and Juror Decision Making One context in which the ramifications of emotion on decision making can be significant is the criminal justice system. Many, including the Supreme Court, have speculated that the introduction of emotion into legal proceedings may unduly influence jurors and contribute to outcomes based largely (or entirely) on extralegal emotional factors; a concern that is particularly pronounced in the presence of a VIS (Myers & Greene, 2004; Salerno & Bottoms, 2009). Often delivered during the sentencing phase of criminal trials, VISs are narratives provided by crime victims or their family members that allow the speaker to detail the pain, suffering, and loss experienced as a result of the crime (Szmania & Gracyalny, 2006). The constitutionality of such statements has been considered by the Supreme Court on three occasions (Booth v. Maryland, 1987; South Carolina v. Gathers, 1989; and Payne v. Tennessee, 1991), ultimately resulting in the Payne majority agreeing that such statements do not violate defendants’ eighth amendment rights. As a result of the Payne decision and subsequent victims’ rights efforts, all 50 states and the federal government now have legislation preserving victims’ rights to provide such statements in criminal trials (Cassell, 2009; Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2009; Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32, 2011), and research suggests they are becoming increasingly common, particularly in noncapital cases (Lens, Pemberton, & Bogaerts, 2013; Myers & Greene, 2004). Evidence regarding the influence of VISs on legal decision making has been divided with research and legal commentators coming down on both sides of the issue. However, the growing body of literature examining the influence of juror emotion on legal decision making provides some important insights. For example, research suggests that observation of others’ emotional displays can influence perceivers’ emotional experiences, perceptions of the other’s credibility, and estimations of the other’s guilt (Kaufmann, Drevland, Wessel, Overskeid, & Magunssen, 2003; Sullins, 1991). Emotionally charged evidence may have a similar effect, as exposure to graphic evidence has been found to contribute to increases in perceptions of defendants’ guilt and lead to more negative interpretations of non-gruesome evidence (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty, 2006). Furthermore, Salerno and Bottoms (2009) suggest that exposure to anger-inducing evidence contributes to increased punitiveness in mock jurors that may lead to negatively biased information search and processing strategies. Finally, jurors exposed to victim harm information are more likely to experience negative emotions than those not exposed to such information, which may contribute to more punitive attitudes (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty, 2006). Collectively, this literature indicates that

2888

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

exposure to a range of negative affective stimuli at trial can influence fact finders’ emotions and perceptions of others. In addition to the potential influence on sentencing, research suggests VISs may contribute to feelings of anger, hostility, and vengefulness toward offenders (Paternoster & Deise, 2011). Although some have postulated that jurors are able to anticipate and compensate for such reactions, accumulating evidence suggests this is unlikely (Blumenthal, 2005). To date, no research has evaluated the effects of specific emotions on legal decision making in the presence of a VIS. Similarly, the influence of individual differences in emotional reactivity on juror decision making is also largely unexplored. However, two notable exceptions exist. In their study examining the influence of affective characteristics on juror decision making, Myers, Lynn, and Arbuthnot (2002) reported that (a) exposure to victim harm information predicted higher ratings of negative affect, (b) negative affect did not predict sentencing outcomes or mediate the relationship between harm information and sentencing outcomes, and (c) victim harm information successfully predicted sentencing judgments only after controlling for negative affect. Although helpful in beginning to unravel the influence of victim harm information on juror decision making, study design did not allow for evaluation of the effects of change in negative affect resulting from exposure to such information. The authors also did not attempt to differentiate the effects of discrete emotions. More recently, Bright and Goodman-Delahunty (2006) reported that exposure to verbal evidence of victim harm in a murder trial did not influence jurors’ emotional states or conviction rates. However, the primary manipulation in their study focused on depictions of victim wounds, and juror reactions of interest were limited to emotions synonymous with fear, anger, sadness, and disgust. Finally, both research teams relied entirely on student mock jury samples, a noteworthy methodological limitation in light of documented disparities between students and community-eligible jury pools (Wiener, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2011). Our study, through use of VISs and community-based, jury-eligible participants, improves on these limitations. The present investigation combined the bodies of literature examining the influence of negative affect on decision making, NFA, and VISs in an effort to gain a more thorough understanding of the influence of juror affectivity on legal decision making. Data (e.g., Lens et al., 2013; Myers & Greene, 2004) suggest VISs are becoming increasingly common in noncapital cases. As such, it is increasingly important to examine how victim input may influence juror decision making outside of the highly emotionally charged context of capital cases. Furthermore, there exist jurisdictions in which victims may participate in the criminal justice process but in which offenders may not be

Wevodau et al.

2889

Figure 1.  Change in negative affect as a mediator of the effect of VIS condition and need for affect predicting years in prison. Note. VIS = victim impact statement.

subject to capital punishment, highlighting a need for better understanding of the influence of this kind of evidence on decisions outside of capital punishment. As such, we sought to extend the bodies of NFA and VIS literature by examining this effect in a noncapital case. Specifically we (a) considered NFA subscale scores (i.e., Approach and Avoidance) and a VIS manipulation (i.e., absence or presence) as predictors of sentencing recommendations, and (b) considered changes in overall negative affect as well as in specific negative emotions [both measured by pre–post Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scores] as mediators of the effects of VISs and NFA. Figure 1 depicts this mediation model. We hypothesized that change in overall negative affect would mediate the effects of NFA subscales and VIS presence on sentencing recommendations. Furthermore, it was anticipated that exposure to a VIS would result in changes in specific negative emotions, thereby leading to increased sentencing recommendations by participants receiving a VIS.

Method Participants Participants included 235 jury panel members from a large urban district in the Southwestern United States (98 males, 134 females, and 3 missing

2890

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

responses; M age = 45.88 years, SD = 12.93). The sample was largely White non-Hispanic (n = 167), with smaller proportions of participants identifying as African American (n = 33), Hispanic (n = 26), Asian American (n = 7), and Biracial/Other (n = 2). Participants were divided nearly evenly between conditions (experimental n = 119, control n = 116). Participants’ educational attainment was reported as follows: less than high school (n = 1), high school (n = 26), some college (n = 71), college degree (n = 94), master’s degree (n = 37), and doctoral degree (n = 6).

Procedures The current sample represents a subset of data from a larger study examining various legal attitudes and juror perceptions. Data collection occurred during a sequence of juror orientation sessions prior to jury selection. The voluntary participation of all summoned jury-eligible community members was verbally solicited upon their arrival to the courtroom. All participants underwent standard informed consent procedures, including the opportunity to ask questions, and were randomly assigned to a condition. Participants were not offered any form of remuneration for their participation in the study. All materials and procedures used in this study were approved by a university institutional review board and court staff prior to the execution of data collection. Participants were offered the opportunity to decline participation or withdraw from the study at any time for any reason.

Materials Case vignette.  All participants read a vignette describing the criminal trial of a male defendant convicted of sexually assaulting a female acquaintance. Study materials included a brief description of the offense, historical information on the defendant, and a brief violence risk assessment outlining risk and mitigating factors relevant to the case. This material was adapted from archival records of Sexually Violent Predator evaluations to increase external validity. Factors selected for inclusion were based on Hanson and Morton-Bourgon’s (2005) meta-analysis of recidivism risk factors. The decision to include factors empirically unrelated to risk was based on research indicating such factors are commonly discussed by experts testifying in similar contexts (Wevodau, 2010) and was intended to increase external validity of the vignette. Last, participants were provided with the statutory definition of sexual assault and state sentencing guidelines (i.e., 2 to 20 years; Vernon’s Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated §12.33, 2009; Vernon’s Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated §22.011, 2009) to use in arriving at a sentencing decision.

Wevodau et al.

2891

Several steps were taken to limit the potential for extraneous bias stemming from information in the vignette. For example, the races of neither victim nor defendant were revealed, given the extant body of literature (e.g., Sommers & Ellsworth, 2009) suggesting race may influence sentencing decisions in certain contexts. Similarly, other personal and identifying information regarding the defendant was limited. In addition, pejorative labels such as “psychopathy” were intentionally excluded in spite of utility in predicting recidivism, as research suggests these terms may unduly influence jurors (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009). Finally, details of the offense were limited to the greatest extent possible to information pertaining to sexual violence only. Script manipulation:VIS.  Participants in the experimental condition also read a VIS that described the emotional and psychological harm experienced by the victim following the attack. The statement was constructed with a high volume of emotionally laden words in an effort to enhance emotional salience. Direction in developing the VIS was derived from recommendations of the Victim Services Division in the state where the study was conducted (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, n.d.) and published VIS excerpts (Szmania & Gracyalny, 2006).

Measures Demographics.  Participants completed a demographic questionnaire including age, gender, race, and educational attainment. Sentencing decision.  After reading study materials, participants were asked to provide a sentencing recommendation within state penal code sentencing guidelines (i.e., 2 to 20 years of incarceration). NFA Scale. The 26-item NFA Scale contains two negatively correlated subscales, Approach and Avoidance, that contribute to a total NFA score. A sevenpoint scale, with extremes reflecting strong agreement or disagreement, is used to rate each item. We used only subscale scores in the present study to ascertain the componential effects of the NFA. Use of the two-, as opposed to single-, factor model is psychometrically advantageous and more accurately captures the NFA construct (Appel, Gnambs, & Maio, 2012; Stroud et al., 2014). This choice was also based on findings suggesting that Approach and Avoidance tendencies influence legal decision making in unique ways (Corwin et al., 2012). Both subscales have previously demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = .83-.84; Maio & Esses, 2001). Cronbach’s alphas for Approach and Avoidance subscale scores in this sample were .81 and .82, respectively.

2892

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

PANAS. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS); (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 20-item measure of positive and negative affective states. Respondents rate the extent to which they experienced given emotions during the time period specified in the directional set (e.g., today, last week, etc.) using a five-point Likert-type scale. Both subscales were administered in the course of the study; however, due in part to previous literature clearly supporting the role of negative affect (e.g., Bornstein & Weiner, 2010; Salerno & Bottoms, 2009) in legal decision making, we used only the negative affect scores in the present study.1 This subscale references emotions such as “upset,” “irritable,” “afraid,” “nervous,” and “hostile.” Both subscales have demonstrated strong internal consistency across instructional sets (α = .84-.90; Watson et al., 1988). Participants completed the PANAS both before and after reading experiment materials. Although the lapse in time between completions was short, both PANAS subscales have demonstrated adequate sensitivity to short-term mood fluctuations (Watson et al., 1988). Cronbach’s alphas for negative affect subscale scores in this sample were .88 and .86 at pre- and post-VIS manipulation administrations.

Results Data Analysis Contemporary approaches articulated by Preacher and Hayes (2008) feature implementation of bootstrap sampling to generate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for indirect pathways from independent to dependent variables. CIs not containing a zero value indicate the presence of an indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), although significance values are also obtainable for the indirect/mediation pathway. We used AMOS software (Arbuckle, 2008) in analyzing the structural equation modeling (SEM) and mediation tests. In so doing, we relied on standard model fit statistics and cutoff values. A dense statistical literature (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999) suggests that the chi-square value, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are acceptable for assessing degree of model fit. Only significant main effects are reported in the models.

Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics for primary variables of interest are reported in Table 1. Individual differences of Avoidance, Approach, and Time-1 negative affect (NA) were examined for significant differences between VIS conditions to ensure that randomization was successful. Using a Bonferroni correction

2893

Wevodau et al. Table 1.  Total and Subgroup (by VIS Condition) Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest. Variable

Overall Scores

VIS Condition Scores

No VIS Condition Scores

NFA Avoidance

−12.25 (11.97); −39.00 to 39.00 5.07 (10.96); −39.00 to 32.00 14.59 (5.20); 10.00 to 44.00 15.15 (5.79); 10.00 to 39.00 0.41 (1.00); −2.00 to 4.00 −0.31 (0.80); −3.00 to 3.00 0.58 (1.29); −3.00 to 4.00 11.85 (6.06); 2.00 to 20.00

−12.73 (11.75); −39.00 to 39.00 4.16 (11.49); −39.00 to 27.00 14.47 (5.05); 10.00 to 36.00 15.68 (6.22); 10.00 to 39.00 0.46 (0.98); −2.00 to 4.00 −0.20 (0.87); −3.00 to 3.00 0.73 (1.29); −2.00 to 4.00 13.51 (5.64); 2.00 to 20.00

−11.78 (12.20); −39.00 to 32.00 5.96 (10.37); −30.00 to 32.00 14.71 (5.36); 10.00 to 44.00 14.63 (5.32); 10.00 to 34.00 0.35 (1.01); −2.00 to 3.00 −0.43 (0.71); −3.00 to 1.00 0.43 (1.27); −3.00 to 4.00 10.23 (6.04); 2.00 to 20.00

NFA Approach NA total time 1 NA total time 2 Hostility change score Nervous change score Upset change score Sentencing (in years)

Note. Numeric values reported in the form of M (SD); range. VIS = victim impact statement; NFA = need for affect; NA = negative affect; Sentencing = sentencing recommendation.

(.05/3 analyses = .017), a p value cutoff of .017 was used to determine whether significant disparities existed. No significant differences were observed (all ps > .20), suggesting that random assignment was successful. Major demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, political orientation, and race) were also examined for differences between VIS conditions using either independent sample t tests (for continuous demographics) or chi-square tests (for categorical demographics); again, no demographics differences existed between groups (all ps > . 40), suggesting that random assignment was successful. Prior to the mediation analysis, it was necessary to demonstrate two patterns concerning the VIS and other variables. First, we assessed whether participants experienced a significant change in negative affect after reading stimulus materials, and if so, whether this change was greater in the VIS condition than in the no VIS condition. Second, we assessed whether there was a significant disparity in sentencing by VIS condition. To assess the pre– post negative affective change, a paired-samples t test was conducted using negative affect scores from prior to and after reading stimulus materials. Results showed a significant overall increase in negative affect, t(235) =

2894

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

−1.96, p = .05, Cohen’s d = −.10. Specifically, scores prior to reading stimuli (M = 14.59, SD = 5.20) were significantly lower than scores after reading stimuli (M = 15.14, SD = 5.79). It was expected that the negative affective change would be greater for those reading the VIS compared with no VIS. Therefore, a between-subjects negative affective change score was tabulated by subtracting the second negative affect score from the first. Higher scores reflect greater levels in negative affective change. An independent samples t test was conducted and showed a significant effect of VIS condition on negative affective change, t(233) = −2.28, p = .02, Cohen’s d = .26. Participants in the VIS condition (M = 1.20, SD = 4.53) experienced a significantly larger increase in negative affect than those not exposed to a VIS (M = −0.08, SD = 4.08), suggesting that the manipulation had the intended emotional effect. A final independent samples t test was conducted to examine disparities in sentencing by VIS condition. Results showed a significant effect of VIS condition on years in prison, t(233) = −4.31, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .56. Participants reading a VIS (M = 13.51, SD = 5.64) assigned significantly longer sentences compared with those who did not read a VIS (M = 10.23, SD = 6.04).

Negative Affective Change as a Mediator of VISs and NFA Predicting Years in Prison Figure 1 displays the negative affect mediation model. Consistent with NFA theory and scale development (Maio & Esses, 2001), error terms of NFA subscales were allowed to correlate. SEM analyses showed the model displayed excellent fit, χ2(2) = 2.45, p = .29, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03. Only statistics for significant effects are reported.2 VIS condition (β = .71, p = .01) and Approach (β = .06, p = .01) displayed significant associations with the change in negative affect. Moreover, VIS condition (β = 1.47, p < .001) and change in negative affect (β = .27, p = .003) displayed significant effects on recommended sentence (i.e., years in prison). Thus, the main effects of Avoidance on negative affect change and sentencing recommendation were non-significant. Table 2 contains a summary of mediation results. Referring to the negative affect change column, it is evident that the 95% bias and accelerated CIs for both VIS condition and Approach, but not Avoidance, do not contain zero, the necessary result suggesting the presence of significant mediation or indirect effects. In other words, reading the VIS (compared with not reading one) led to an increase in negative affect that in turn yielded an increased sentencing recommendation. In addition, greater levels of approaching emotion were associated with increased negative affect that in turn yielded an increased sentencing recommendation.

2895

Wevodau et al.

Table 2.  Mediation Analyses Bootstrap Estimates (95% CI) Predicting Years in Prison Recommended for Perpetrator. Mediator Predictor Variable

Negative Affect Change

VIS .189 [.048, .439]** condition Approach .017 [.004, .038]** Avoidance .006 [−.004, .024]

Hostility Change

Upset Change

Nervousness Change

.069 [−.030, .256]

.138 [.015, .369]*

.098 [.001, .302]*

.015 [.003, .039]** .008 [−.001, .031]

.010 [.000, .031] .002 [−.013, .002] .008 [−.002, .031] −.003 [−.005, .018]

Note. Table contains Bootstrap Estimate (95% bias and accelerated confidence interval lower/upper bound). Analyses based on 2,000 bootstrap samples. VIS = Victim Impact Statement; Approach = Need for Affect Approach Subscale; Avoidance = Need for Affect Avoidance Subscale. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Exploratory Analyses: Types of Negative Affect Change as Mediators The mediation effects of change in negative affect raises a question as to changes in what type of negative affect may specifically explain these effects. Indeed, negative affect is a multi-dimensional construct inclusive of emotions including, but not limited to, distress, nervousness, and hostility (Watson et al., 1988). Moreover, appraisal-based theories of emotion (e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Tiedens & Linton, 2001) suggest that discrete emotions are associated with various behavioral and decisional outcomes. We adopted an analytical approach consistent with primary analyses in that we (a) evaluated specific negative emotions that changed pre–post VIS manipulation, and (b) tested those negative emotions as potential mediators of the influence of VIS condition and NFA on sentencing recommendation. There are a total of 10 negative emotions contained in the NA subscale of the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988); therefore, we conducted a series of 10 paired-samples t tests for pre–post changes to identify potential negative emotions that may act as mediators. A Bonferroni correction (.05 p value/10 analyses) was used to prevent inflation of Type I error. The following three negative emotions displayed significant pre–post changes: an increase in hostility, t(234) = 6.28, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .49, Mdiff = 0.41, SD = 1.00; decrease in nervousness, t(234) = −6.03, p < .001, Cohen’s d = −.38, Mdiff = −0.31, SD = .80; and an increase in being upset, t(234) = 6.90, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .57, Mdiff = 0.58, SD = 1.29. Consistent with primary analyses, a change score was tabulated for these three negative emotions (i.e., post-manipulation scores minus pre-manipulation scores), so higher scores reflected increased amount of change in each

2896

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

negative emotion. The three negative emotions (i.e., change in hostility, nervousness, and upset) were subsequently examined in three identical mediation models (see Figure 1 for general structure), with each negative emotion supplanting change in overall negative affect. SEM analyses showed the change in hostility mediation model displayed excellent fit, χ2(2) = 2.45, p = .29, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03. Only Approach (β = .02, p = .007) displayed a significant association with the change in hostility. Moreover, VIS condition (β = 1.56, p < .001) and change in hostility (β = .92, p = .02) displayed significant effects on sentencing recommendations (i.e., years in prison). Thus, significant effects of Avoidance again went unobserved in this model. Referring to the hostility change column in Table 2, the 95% bias and accelerated CI for Approach, but not Avoidance or VIS condition, do not contain zero. Change in hostility mediated the influence of Approach on sentencing recommendations such that increased approach to emotions was associated with an increase in hostility that in turn yielded an increased sentence in years. SEM analyses showed the change in upset mediation model displayed excellent fit, χ2(2) = 2.45, p = .29, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03. Only VIS condition (β = .17, p = .04) displayed a significant association with the change in upset. Moreover, VIS condition (β = 1.50, p < .001) and change in upset (β = .82, p = .006) displayed significant effects on recommended sentences. Referring to the hostility change column in Table 2, the 95% bias and accelerated CI for VIS condition, but not Avoidance or Approach, do not contain zero. Change in upset mediated the influence of VIS condition on sentencing recommendations; VIS exposure was associated with an increase in being upset that yielded an increased sentence in years. SEM analyses showed the change in nervousness mediation model displayed excellent fit, χ2(2) = 2.45, p = .29, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03. Only VIS condition (β = .12, p = .02) displayed a significant association with the change in nervousness. Moreover, VIS condition (β = 1.54, p < .001) displayed a significant effect on recommended sentence. Referring to the nervousness change column in Table 2, the 95% bias and accelerated CI for VIS condition, but not Avoidance or Approach, do not contain zero. Change in nervousness mediated the impact of VIS condition on sentencing recommendation; exposure to a VIS was associated with an increase in nervousness that yielded an increased sentence.

Discussion Findings reported here are consistent with some previous VIS research asserting that exposure to a VIS contributes to lengthier sentencing

Wevodau et al.

2897

recommendations by jurors (McGowan & Myers, 2004; Myers & Arbuthnot, 1999; Paternoster & Deise, 2011). For example, results from the current study confirm the supposition of VIS opponents (e.g., Myers & Greene, 2004) that exposure to such testimony increases jurors’ negative affect and punitiveness toward the offender. Although increases in negative affect were observed overall, the absolute value of these changes varied significantly by condition with participants exposed to a VIS reporting larger changes than those not exposed. However, the present study is the first to identify such a pattern in a scenario involving a crime other than murder. This may be due in part to the overwhelming focus of VIS researchers on capital crimes. However, evidence suggests VISs are being delivered with increasing frequency in noncapital cases, and one recent study reported that victims of sexual assault are more likely to deliver a VIS than victims of some other types of crime (Lens et al., 2013). These data indicate that VISs are in fact used in a variety of non-homicide cases and highlight a growing need to evaluate the influence of VISs on juror decision making in noncapital and non-homicide contexts. Therefore, in light of methodological strengths, such as the use of a community juror sample, the findings presented here are among the first to inform such cases with a moderate degree of ecological validity. Although research has previously demonstrated that VISs contribute to increases in jurors’ negative affect, no study to date has empirically examined the specific types of emotions likely to be elicited by VIS exposure. The present study is also the first to explore the nature of changes in such specific emotions and the related implications for sentencing. Two pathways emerged from the current data that suggest that changes in feelings of upset and nervousness mediate the influence of VIS exposure on sentencing recommendations. Following exposure to a VIS, jurors tended to become more upset and nervous, which independently led to more punitive sentencing recommendations. These findings support the assertion of emotion researchers (e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) that strictly valence-based explanations of the emotion–decision making relationship are insufficient. Rather than change in overall level of negative affect, change in specific emotions resulted in differential sentencing decisions. It is also likely that the cognitive processes underlying these patterns are divergent, requiring a more nuanced explanation than is possible with a valence-based theory. For instance, increases in feelings of upset after exposure to a VIS could be explained by the emotion contagion theory (Sullins, 1991). The VIS, intended to depict harm suffered by a distressed victim, may have elicited distress in participants, compelling them to seek retribution for the perceived wrong. In addition, the increase in nervousness that followed

2898

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

VIS exposure may have resulted from changes in participants’ feelings of certainty. Research suggests feelings of uncertainty influence information processing and decision-making strategies, and contribute to distress that perceivers are motivated to reconcile (Tiedens & Linton, 2001; Wiener et al., 2006). Worry and surprise, emotions associated with nervousness, are characterized by high levels of uncertainty (Tiedens & Linton, 2001). The mediation model here may suggest that for jurors to deal with heightened nervousness and uncertainty, they enhanced punishment toward the offender. Such decisions may serve to allay anxiety and uncertainty, often restoring a feeling of justice in the world (Foley & Pigott, 2000). The final mediation model to emerge occurred across conditions. Regardless of VIS presence, participants’ proclivity for approaching emotions contributed to an increase in hostility resulting in lengthier sentencing recommendations. The current study is one of the first to consider the influence of NFA on juror sentencing decisions in the presence of a VIS and extends the body of NFA literature by evaluating effects in this context. Findings reported here are consistent with NFA theory as well as prior work examining NFA in a legal context. For example, Maio and Esses (2001) postulated that those high in Approach are more likely to incorporate emotional information into their decision making. It is possible that after reading the study materials (regardless of VIS presence), participants high in Approach experienced more hostile reactions to the harm done in the sexual assault. Subsequently, they were more likely to reflect on their emotional state in arriving at a sentencing decision, possibly contributing to more punitive cognitive appraisals and subsequently lengthier sentencing recommendations. The present findings are also consistent with results reported by Corwin et al. (2012) insofar as jurors high in Approach were more likely to include available emotional data in their sentencing decisions. Although some research suggests NFA uniquely influences perceptions of victims (Cramer et al., 2013), the present results support Corwin and colleagues’ finding that juror NFA influences perceptions of offenders. Finally, the present findings confirm the lack of effects of Avoidance on legal decision making reported elsewhere (e.g., Corwin et al., 2012). Future research should continue to disentangle circumstances under which NFA may affect perceptions of victims and offenders alike. Given the increasing number of social scientists involved in the legal process, including those acting as trial consultants, the present results stand to inform empirically based approaches to both jury selection and trial strategy. For example, the current study highlights the utility of screening venire persons’ NFA in cases involving a VIS or other victim harm information as the defense may screen out impartial panel members high in Approach. The

Wevodau et al.

2899

present results also suggest the utility, particularly for the prosecution, of engaging specific negative emotions in jurors; namely, feelings of hostility, upset, and nervousness, as such emotions may be related to increased punitiveness toward offenders. Some limitations of this study merit note. First, analyses were based on juror, rather than judicial, sentencing recommendations. Although criminal sentences are typically rendered by judges, jury sentencing in noncapital cases occurs in several states, including the state in which this study was conducted (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated. art. 37.07, 2012). In addition, there is reason to believe that despite their specialized training, judges may be subject to the same cognitive biases observed in lay persons (Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich, 2001). Second, jurors were asked to render a sentence without deliberation. As research has shown deliberation can influence sentencing recommendations (e.g., Lynch & Haney, 2009), future studies may benefit from including a deliberation component. Third, the current study did not include an experimental mood induction. As such, we can only infer that observed changes in negative affect were the result of VIS exposure. Fourth, the decision not to use a non-emotional VIS as a partial control may have influenced the finding reported here in unknown ways and limits the ability of the present findings to speak to the influence of non-emotional victim input. Finally, the decision to introduce victim emotion in the form of a VIS, rather than an alternative format, may have influenced results in unknown ways and limits the ability of the current study to speak to the influence of other forms of victim emotion on juror decision making that may be more common in jurisdictions that do not allow VISs. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes 1.

Positive affect scores were also non-significant in relation to victim impact statement (VIS) exposure; full results are obtainable from the corresponding author on request. 2. Full tests statistics of non-significant Avoidance effects are available on request to the corresponding author.

2900

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

References Appel, M., Gnambs, T., & Maio, G. R. (2012). A short measure of the need for affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 418-426. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.6 66921 Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). Amos users guide (Version 17). Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation. Blumenthal, J. A. (2005). Law and the emotions: The problems of affective forecasting. Indiana Law Journal, 80, 155-238. Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45-62. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240104 Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 486 (1987). Bornstein, B. H., & Weiner, R. L. (2010). Emotion and the law: Psychological perspectives. New York, NY: Springer. Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y Cassell, P. G. (2009). In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 611-648. Corwin, E. F., Cramer, R. J., Griffin, D. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40, 41-49. Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., Pennington, C. R., Wechsler, H. J., Clark, J. W., III, & Nagle, J. (2013). An examination of sexual orientation- and transgender-based hate crimes in the post-Matthew Shepard era. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 355-368. doi:10.1037/a0031404 Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. §3771 (2009). Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384392. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32 (2011). Foley, L. A., & Pigott, M. A. (2000). Belief in a just world and jury decisions in a civil rape trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 935-951. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02504.x Fox, E. (2008). Emotion science. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830. Hanson, R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 21-34. doi:10.1002/acp.842

Wevodau et al.

2901

Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 740-752. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.740 Lens, K. E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2013). Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a victim impact statement. European Journal of Criminology, 10, 479-495. doi:10.1177/1477370812469859 Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotionspecific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 473-493. doi:10.1080/026999300402763 Levenson, R. W. (1992). Autonomic nervous-system differences among emotions. Psychological Science, 3, 23-27. Lieberman, J. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2009). The effects of labelling, expert testimony, and information processing mode on juror decisions in SVP civil commitment trials. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6, 25-41. doi:10.1002/jip.91. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 481-496. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2 Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583-615. McGowan, M., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19, 357-374. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95-112. doi:10.1300/J076v29n03_05 Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492-515. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492 Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393-2412. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002. tb01869.x Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49, 129-161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.x Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991). Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 273-296. doi:10.1002/bsl.861

2902

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29(16)

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisals in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838. doi:10.1037/00223514.48.4.813 Sommers, S. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). “Race salience” in juror decision-making: Misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 599-609. doi:10.1002/bsl.877 South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 905 (1989). Stroud, C. H., Cramer, R. J., & Miller, R. S. (2014). A trait-affect model of understanding perceptions of expert witness testimony. Psychology, Psychiatry and Law, 21, 333-350. Sullins, E. S. (1991). Emotional contagion revisited: Effects of social comparison and expressive style on mood convergence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 166-174. doi:10.1177/014616729101700208 Szmania, S. J., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2006). Addressing the court, the offender, and the community: A communication analysis of victim impact statements in a non-capital sentencing hearing. International Review of Victimology, 13, 231-249. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated. art. 37.07, (2012). Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (n.d.). Publications: Victim services division. Retrieved from http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/pubs_victim_impact_ statement.html Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). The effect of anger on the hostile inferences of aggressive and nonaggressive people: Specific emotions, cognitive processing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 233-251. doi:10.1023/A:1012224507488 Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973-988. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.81.6.973 Vernon’s Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated, Penal Code, Title 3 § 12.33. (2009). Vernon’s Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated, Penal Code, Title 5 § 22.011. (2009). Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/00223514.54.6.1063 Wevodau, A. L. (2010). Is expert testimony in sexually violent predator proceedings consistent with sexual offender recidivism research? A content analysis of deposition transcripts (Unpublished master’s thesis). Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX. Wiener, R. L., Bornstein, B. H., & Voss, A. (2006). Emotion and the law: A framework for inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 231-248. doi:10.1007/s10979006-9025-0 Wiener, R. L., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2011). Mock jury research: Where do we go from here? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 467-479. doi:10.1002/ bsl.98

Wevodau et al.

2903

Author Biographies Amy L. Wevodau, MA, is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include issues related to psycholegal decision making and forensic assessment. Robert J. Cramer, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology at Sam Houston State University, and a trial consultant with Westlake Trial Consulting (Austin, TX). His research interests include hate crimes and violence, LGBT issues, expert testimony, and suicide. Andre Kehn, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of North Dakota. His research interests include eyewitness memory, child witnesses, and jury decision making. John W. Clark III, PhD, is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Texas, Tyler. His research interests include jury decision making, jury selection, and trial consulting.

Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements.

Victim impact statements (VISs) represent a contentious legal and psychological point of debate. Current knowledge concerning the influence of VISs on...
448KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views