Guilt Ratings Research Articles

Thought–action fusion as a mediator of religiosity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms

Background and ObjectivesThought-action fusion (TAF), or maladaptive cognitions regarding the relationship between mental events and behaviours, has been implicated in the development and maintenance of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). As some religions promote TAF-like appraisals, it has been proposed that religiosity may play a role in the transformation of normally occurring intrusive thoughts into clinically distressing obsessions. No research, however, has experimentally investigated the mediating role of TAF on the relationship between religiosity and OC symptoms. Methods85 Christian, Jewish, and Atheist/Agnostic participants were exposed to an experimental thought-induction protocol and reported on their associated levels of distress, guilt, feelings of responsibility, and urge to suppress target intrusions experienced during a 5-min monitoring period. Participants also completed measures of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, TAF beliefs, and general psychopathology. ResultsUsing PROCESS and bootstrapping analyses, a test of the conditional indirect effects of religiosity on obsessive-compulsive symptoms revealed that Christianity moderated the effects of religiosity on moral TAF beliefs, which in turn mediated the relationship between religiosity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Furthermore, in the Christian group, moral TAF beliefs mediated the relationship between religiosity and ratings of guilt and responsibility following the experimental protocol. LimitationsThe use of university students with moderate levels of religiosity. ConclusionsCollectively the results suggest that obsessional thinking is not attributable to religion per se, but that teachings underlying certain religious doctrines may fuel TAF beliefs that are implicated in the maintenance of OCD.

Relapse dynamics during smoking cessation: Recurrent abstinence violation effects and lapse-relapse progression.

Smoking cessation is a process that unfolds over time and is characterized by intermittent lapses. We used parametric recurrent event survival analyses to better understand the dynamic relationship between a set of Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE, Marlatt & Gordon, 1985) responses to lapsing and subsequent lapse-relapse progression. Participants were 203 smokers who achieved abstinence and responded to items assessing three core components of the AVE (internal attribution, abstinence self-efficacy and guilt) following a total of 1,001 lapse episodes in near real time. Neither self-blame, self-efficacy, nor guilt following participants' first lapse predicted relapse. Controlling for responses to their first lapse, responses to each additional lapse did prospectively predict lapse progression, such that drops in self-efficacy were associated with accelerated progression to a subsequent lapse (HR = 1.09, CI = 1.02-1.15), while increases in internal attributions of blame actually protected against lapsing (HR = 0.98, CI = 0.97-0.99). Treatment with nicotine patches slowed recurrent lapse progression (HR = 0.58, CI = 0.48-0.70), but this effect dissipated over multiple lapses, and was moderated by elevated ratings of postlapse guilt (HR = 1.08, CI = 1.01-1.18), which predicted accelerated progression within the active patch group, while protecting against lapse in the placebo group. Results highlight the dynamic nature of lapse responses during smoking cessation, indicating that self-efficacy predicts progression from one lapse to the next, while attributions of self-blame and guilt influenced progression in unexpected ways.

The Effects of Masculinity and Suspect Gender on Perceptions of Guilt

SummaryThis study investigated whether perceptions of guilt for both male and female suspects co‐varied with masculine physical appearance. In addition, the study tested whether the relationship between masculine physical appearance and perceptions of guilt was dependent upon whether the crime is stereotypically male perpetrated. Participants read one of three crime scenarios (burglary, child abuse and neglect, fraud and forgery) and evaluated the likelihood that suspects of varying masculine appearance committed the crime in question. Masculine physical appearance significantly affected guilt ratings across all crime types for both male and female suspects. Additionally, guilt ratings for male compared with female suspects were higher for burglary, a crime that was viewed as stereotypically male perpetrated by research participants. The results are discussed in relation to applied implications and future research directions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anger Elicitation in Tonga and Germany: The Impact of Culture on Cognitive Determinants of Emotions

The cognitive appraisal of an event is crucial for the elicitation and differentiation of emotions, and causal attributions are an integral part of this process. In an interdisciplinary project comparing Tonga and Germany, we examined how cultural differences in attribution tendencies affect emotion assessment and elicitation. Data on appraising causality and responsibility and on emotional responses were collected through questionnaires based on experimentally designed vignettes, and were related to culture-specific values, norms, and the prevailing self-concept. The experimental data support our hypothesis that – driven by culturally defined self-concepts and corresponding attribution tendencies – members of the two cultures cognitively appraise events in diverging manners and consequently differ in their emotional responses. Ascription of responsibility to self and/or circumstances, in line with a more interdependent self-concept, co-varies with higher ratings of shame, guilt, and sadness, whereas ascription of responsibility to others, in line with a less interdependent self-concept, co-varies with higher ratings of anger. These findings support the universal contingency hypothesis and help to explain cultural differences in this domain on a fine-grained level.

An Experimental Decision-Making Paradigm to Distinguish Guilt and Regret and Their Self-Regulating Function via Loss Averse Choice Behavior

Both guilt and regret typically result from counterfactual evaluations of personal choices that caused a negative outcome and are thought to regulate human decisions by people’s motivation to avoid these emotions. Despite these similarities, studies asking people to describe typical situations of guilt and regret identified the social dimension as a fundamental distinguishing factor, showing that guilt but not regret specifically occurs for choices in interpersonal (social) contexts. However, an experimental paradigm to investigate this distinction systematically by inducing emotions of guilt and regret online is still missing. Here, extending existing procedures, we introduce such a paradigm, in which participants choose in each trial between two lotteries, with the outcome of the chosen lottery (gain or loss) being either assigned to themselves (intrapersonal trials) or to another person (interpersonal trials). After results of both the chosen and the unchosen lottery were shown, subjects rated how they felt about the outcome, including ratings of guilt and regret. Trait Guilt (TG) was determined for all participants in order to take their general inclination to experience guilt into account. Results confirmed that guilt but not regret specifically occurred in an interpersonal context. Percentages of loss averse choices (choosing the lottery with the lower possible monetary loss) were determined as indicators of regulation via guilt and regret avoidance. High TG scorers generally made more loss averse choices than low TG scorers, while trial-by-trial analyses showed that low TG scorers used their feelings of guilt more specifically to avoid the same emotional experience in subsequent choices. Our results confirm the social dimension as the critical factor distinguishing guilt from regret and identify TG as an important moderator determining the way in which guilt vs. regret can regulate their own occurrence by influencing choice strategies.

The Effects of Evidence, Coherence and Credentials on Jury Decision-Making in Child Sexual Abuse Trials

Expert testimony is being used increasingly in child sexual assault cases. This study extended a prior study that examined factors related to expert testimony (evidence strength, coherence and credentials of the expert) on ratings of guilt and overall verdict. Specifically, we replicated our prior study but with two modifications: we used community samples as opposed to university students, and participants made their decisions in groups of 12 (as in the case of juries where one decision represents the overall group) rather than having participants decide and submit their verdicts and guilt ratings individually. Consistent with the prior (less ecologically valid) study, credentials of the expert had negligible impact. Evidence that was high in strength elicited a relatively high guilt rating even when the testimony was low in coherence. Further, it appears that when participants deliberate in a group (as in the case of juries) they are more conservative in their judgements (i.e., they are less likely to give a guilty verdict) compared to individual jurors who make their decisions alone. These findings suggest that caution must be exercised when drawing conclusions about the generalisability of prior research findings where participants did not engage in group deliberation.

Positive and Negative Pretrial Publicity

The authors investigated the effects of exposure to pretrial publicity (PTP) on impression formation, juror emotion, and predecisional distortion. Mock jurors read news articles containing negative (antidefendant) PTP or positive (prodefendant) PTP or unrelated articles. One week later, they viewed a videotaped murder trial and then made decisions about guilt. Jurors’ emotions were measured three times during the experiment: before exposure to PTP, immediately after exposure to PTP, and immediately following the trial. Exposure to both positive and negative PTP significantly affected verdicts, perceptions of defendant credibility, emotion (anger and positive emotions), and predecisional distortion. Defendant’s credibility, jurors’ emotions, and predecisional distortion significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings.

Evaluations of Sexual Assault: Perceptions of Guilt and Legal Elements for Male and Female Aggressors Using Various Coercive Strategies

This study examines the extent to which verdict, guilt, and legal components associated with jury instructions of sexual assault differ as a function of aggressor gender, participant gender, and sexual strategy used (consensual, verbal coercion, alcohol, or physical aggression) to obtain sex. Participants (N = 423; 276 women and 147 men) read a vignette depicting either a couple having consensual sex (control), or a male or female aggressor who initiates sexual intercourse via verbal coercion, use of alcohol, or physical abuse. College students were provided with legal instructions of sexual assault then asked to provide a verdict, degree of guilt, and legal components. Female participants rated guilt and coercion higher than did male participants. Ratings of guilt were highest in the physical assault condition followed by the alcohol, verbal, and control conditions. Female aggressors were rated less guilty than male aggressors. Results are explained in relation to sexual scripts and legal decision making. Lack of significance in verdict decisions and interaction effects suggests male and female aggressors are evaluated similarly using coercive strategies; yet, consent for sex was assumed and attributions of guilt was lower when the aggressor was female. Implications for jury instructions and future research are discussed.

I spy with my little eye: jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence.

This experiment examined whether jury-eligible community members (N = 223) were able to detect internally invalid psychological science presented at trial. Participants read a simulated child sexual abuse case in which the defense expert described a study he had conducted on witness memory and suggestibility. We varied the study's internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and publication status (published, unpublished). Expert evidence quality ratings were higher for the valid versus missing control group version only. Publication increased ratings of defendant guilt when the study was missing a control group. Variations in internal validity did not influence perceptions of child victim credibility or police interview quality. Participants' limited detection of internal validity threats underscores the need to examine the effectiveness of traditional legal safeguards against junk science in court and improve the scientific reasoning ability of lay people and legal professionals.

Instinctual impulses in obsessive compulsive disorder: A neuropsychological and psychoanalytic interface

Psychopathology of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) that has been characterized by a conflict between the ego and superego on one hand, and aggressive and sexual impulses emerging from the id on the other, and employment of characteristic defenses to combat intense conflicts being connected with ones’ biological disposition from the psychoanalytic school of thought now gets empirical foundation from neuroimaging research. The findings disregard the psychological construct, exclusively establishing the neurobiology of the disorder. With the objective to study the impact of sexual and aggressive impulses on the executive functions and processing speed in the patient group, 20 OCD patients (11 males, 9 females) and 20 normal control subjects, matched for all relevant variables including age, sex, educational level and handedness were studied. Sexual impulse and guilt was assessed on the Sex Guilt Rating Scale (SGRS), aggressive impulses were tested using State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI), the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) was used to assess symptom severity, executive functions were assessed through Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and processing speed was assessed by employing the Processing Speed Index (PSI) – from WAIS III. It was found that the OCD group differed significantly from the controls, attaining significantly lower percentiles on Processing Speed Index and for all variables of WCST under consideration, namely, perseverative response, perseverative error, non-perseverative error, conceptual level response and number of categories completed. They reported higher scores on subscales of STAXI, specifically related to trait anger and lower scores on anger expression. On the items of SGRS, the OCD group significantly differed with the controls, expressing greater sexual inhibition. In conclusion, we propose an explanation of psychopathology of OCD, which addresses instinctual impulses, executive functions and neural substrates. Our findings contribute to understanding instinctual impulses from the neuropsychological perspective. The findings have implications for better eclectic understanding of the pathogenesis of OCD.

Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault

This study examined the impact of a rape complainant's willingness to ingest a chemical substance and the type of ingested substance on the decisions of 229 mock jurors. Jurors were influenced by the type of substance used by the complainant, the complainant's willingness to use a substance, and rape myths. The complainant's ingestion of alcohol (compared to gamma-hydroxybutrate [GHB] and marijuana) led to the highest guilt ratings for the defendant. The complainant who willingly ingested a substance was viewed as less credible and more to blame for the rape compared to one who unwillingly used a substance. The complainant was perceived as the most credible when she unwillingly ingested GHB or marijuana. Jurors high in rape myth acceptance gave lower ratings of guilt to the defendant compared to jurors with lower rape myth acceptance. Overall, the results highlight several juror and case factors that might bias jurors in actual rape trials.

Playing the race card: Making race salient in defence opening and closing statements

Purpose. Researchers have reported that making a Black defendant's race salient reduces White jurors' tendency to find Black defendants guilty (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). We examined whether making race salient by including racially salient statements in the defence attorney's opening and closing statements (i.e., ‘playing the race card’) reduced White jurors' racial bias against a Black defendant.Method. We obtained scores on racial attitudes for 151 White college students who participated in an experiment where defendant race (Black, White) and race salience (not salient, salient) were manipulated in a between‐subjects design. Participants read one of four trial stimuli and completed dependent measures.Results. ‘Playing the race card’ reduced White juror racial bias as White jurors' ratings of guilt for Black defendants were significantly lower when the defence attorney's statements included racially salient statements. White juror ratings of guilt for White defendants and Black defendants were not significantly different when race was not made salient. This effect was separate from jurors' level of prejudice (as measured by racial attitudes) as high prejudice participants were more likely than low prejudice participants to find the Black defendant guilty, independent of the race salience manipulation.Conclusion. Our study indicated that an explicit attempt by a defence attorney to ‘play the race card’ was a beneficial trial strategy a defence attorney could use to reduce White jurors' bias towards Black defendants. However, the beneficial effect of such a strategy may not reduce White jurors' bias towards Black defendants for all White jurors.

Factors Affecting Juror Decisions in Historic Child Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Continuous Memories

The study investigated how jurors perceived historic child sexual abuse (HCSA) cases involving continuous rather than repressed memories of the abuse. Mock jurors ( N = 295) read a simulated trial transcript involving a case of HCSA that varied the length of delay between the end of the alleged abuse and time of reporting (2 vs. 15 vs. 30 years), relationship to the alleged victim (uncle vs. former coach), and abuse frequency (1 vs. 12 times). The effects of these variables on mock jurors’ decisions were investigated. The shorter delay led to significantly higher guilt ratings and lengthier sentence recommendations compared with longer delays. Mock jurors assigned higher guilt ratings when the defendant was the uncle rather than the coach but only when the abuse was perpetrated once rather than 12 times. Mock jurors were more confident in their verdict decisions when the defendant was the uncle rather than the coach and when the abuse occurred 12 times rather than once.

Alibi Believability: The Effect of Prior Convictions and Judicial Instructions

Undergraduates (N = 339) listened to a simulated police interview with a defendant concerning his alibi. We studied the impact of (a) the strength of the alibi evidence; (b) defendant's prior convictions; (c) judge's instructions on prior conviction evidence; and (d) perceivers' need for cognition (NFC) on alibi believability and defendant guilt ratings. Defendants previously convicted of the same crime as the current charge were seen as more likely to be guilty than defendants previously convicted of a different crime. Judge's instructions did not affect guilt ratings. NFC was less influential than anticipated, but did affect participants' understanding and recall of judicial instructions. Strong alibis were seen as more believable and led to lower guilt ratings than weak alibis.

The Effects of Victim Gender, Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making

Mock jurors provided credibility ratings for a victim (12 years old) and defendant when victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age (15 vs. 40 years old) were manipulated. Verdicts and sentence recommendations also were assessed. Higher guilt ratings were found for a male versus female defendant. Juror gender was examined as a covariate in the analyses. Female jurors rated the victim higher on accuracy, truthfulness, and believability than male jurors. Male jurors rated the defendant higher on reliability, credibility, truthfulness, and believability than female jurors. Male jurors perceived the victim to desire and cause the crime to a greater extent than female jurors. Mock jurors rated the victim as more responsible for the crime with an older versus younger defendant. Female jurors ascribed higher responsibility to the defendant compared to male jurors. The younger versus older defendant was perceived to have desired the event but only when the victim was female versus male.

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making

AbstractPsychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Battered Women Who Kill

Mock jurors (N = 312) viewed a simulated trial involving a woman, charged with the murder of her abusive husband, entering a plea of not guilty by reason of self-defense. Expert testimony was varied using battered woman syndrome, social agency framework, or no expert testimony. Within expert testimony conditions, jurors were presented with opening and closing statements either including or not including instructions aimed at inducing empathy. Results indicate differences in gender and expert testimony for ratings of guilt as well as differences in gender, expert testimony, and empathy induction for perceptions of the defendant.

Negative and positive pretrial publicity affect juror memory and decision making.

The experiment examined the effects of exposure to pretrial publicity (PTP) and delay on juror memory and decision-making. Mock jurors read news articles containing negative PTP, positive PTP, or unrelated articles. Five days later, they viewed a videotaped murder trial, after which they made decisions about guilt. Finally, all participants independently attributed specific information as having been presented during the trial or in the news articles. Half of the jurors rendered their verdicts and completed the source-memory test immediately after the trial, while the other half did so after a 2-day delay. Exposure to PTP significantly affected guilty verdicts, perceptions of defendant credibility, juror ratings of the prosecuting and defense attorneys, and misattributions of PTP as having been presented as trial evidence. Similar effects were obtained for negative and positive PTP. Delay significantly increased source-memory errors but did not influence guilt ratings. Defendant's credibility and juror ratings of prosecuting and defense attorneys significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings.

"I had a confidence epiphany!": Obstacles to combating post-identification confidence inflation.

Research shows that eyewitnesses often become more confident with their selections from a lineup over time, a problem labeled "confidence inflation." Wells et al. (1998) Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647 suggested that eyewitnesses provide a confidence statement immediately following their selection to capture an unadulterated measure of confidence. Three experiments tested the effectiveness of introducing such a statement to combat the effects of confidence inflation on mock-juror judgments. All experiments provided evidence that the attributions participants formed about the eyewitness' confidence inflation differentially impacted their judgments. Although mock-jurors generally discredited eyewitnesses who showed confidence inflation and sometimes lowered probability of guilt ratings for the defendant, a clear exception occurred when mock-jurors attributed the inflation to an epiphany. Use of post-identification confidence statements to decrease the impact of confidence inflation in the courtroom may be insufficient.