Predecisional Distortion Research Articles

The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis.

We updated and extended a meta-analysis on pretrial publicity (PTP) conducted by Steblay et al. (1999) by reexamining the effect of negative (antidefendant) PTP on individual (juror) and deliberating group (jury) verdicts and the effect of positive (pro-defendant) PTP on individual verdicts. We hypothesized that exposure to negative PTP would increase guilty verdicts from both jurors and juries, whereas exposure to positive PTP would decrease guilty verdicts. We predicted that the relationship between negative PTP and juror verdicts would vary according to methodological and theoretical variables. For methodological variables, we hypothesized that published studies, community-member participants, and crime-related comparison conditions would have a stronger PTP effect. For theoretical variables related to the story model, source monitoring bias, and predecisional distortion, we predicted that the effect of PTP would be stronger with more serious crimes, longer time delays, greater amounts of PTP, and more-severe PTP. We analyzed 77 unique effect sizes extracted from 27 published and 18 unpublished reports based on 11,240 individual participants. Negative PTP increased juror guilty verdicts (r = .16) and jury verdicts (r = .35), whereas positive PTP decreased guilty verdicts (r = -.21). Moderator analyses revealed that negative PTP's effect on juror verdicts was stronger for published studies, student participants, and unrelated crime or no additional information control groups. Additionally, the biasing effect of negative PTP was stronger for nonviolent crimes, trial delays of less than 1 week, PTP presented in one article with multiple facts, and moderate-severity PTP. PTP has a modest biasing effect when it favors or disfavors the defendant. Nonetheless, the impact of negative PTP on individuals varies according to studies' methodological variables and variables theoretically related to the mechanism underlying PTP's biasing effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

How controversy leads to commitment: Predecisional distortion in reactions to premarket products through online review systems

Research examining online reviews and ratings has generally found higher ratings result in positive perceptions and ultimately more sales, but little is known about how polarized ratings and/or reviews influence consumer behavior and purchasing outcomes. We argue that controversy is an important boundary condition for predicting how aggregated ratings and review valences impact user behavior and product outcomes. Using cognitive dissonance theory, particularly research on predecisional distortion and the blemishing effect, we develop and test three hypotheses that examine whether average-rated products that are a result of consensus elicit different consumer behaviors and product outcomes than average-rated controversial products (i.e., products with polarized ratings). Utilizing four years of real-world rating, commenting, and purchasing behaviors pertaining to over 60 thousand designs and two thousand products from a creative crowdsourcing ecommerce site, we find that negative information mixed with positive feedback can produce net positive results. Products which receive more polarized premarket feedback generate more community discussion, community sales, and follow-through purchases. The findings suggest that, in situations where consumers have a developing preference for an item, encountering comparatively negative information can in fact have a positive impact on commenting and purchasing behaviors—more so than if no opposing information were present.

A valence asymmetry in predecisional distortion of information: Evidence from an eye tracking study with incentivized choices.

Existing research shows that the order in which evidence arrives can bias its evaluation and the resulting decision in favor of information encountered early on. We used eye-tracking to study the underlying cognitive mechanisms in the context of incentivized financial choices based on real world market data. Subjects learned about the presence/absence of a transaction fee, before seeing expert opinions regarding an investment prospect and deciding whether to invest. Although the fee had no effect on the processing of negative opinions, we found that positive ones were processed more effortlessly (with lower gaze duration and pupil dilation) when it was absent, that is, when they were congruent with the positive initial information in the shape of the lack of fees. Despite their more effortless processing in the absence of fees, positive opinions then had a greater impact on the subjects' beliefs. In addition to an initial study with 100 subjects, these findings were replicated in a second, preregistered experiment with 103 subjects, in which a positive premium was paid in the event of no fee. Thus, we argue that the valence asymmetry in favor of positive information observed in evaluative priming, person perception, and related tasks (the density hypothesis) also plays a crucial role in incentivized economic choice. In fact, rather than being a detrimental bias, the overweighting of initial evidence often observed in decisions could be seen as an adaptive heuristic aimed at reducing the cost of processing later, similar information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

첫 댓글의 영향력 : 온라인 뉴스 댓글에 대한 정보왜곡 효과 탐구

첫 댓글의 영향력 : 온라인 뉴스 댓글에 대한 정보왜곡 효과 탐구

The Effect of a Superior's Perceived Expertise on the Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Auditors

SUMMARY Auditors have been shown to predecisionally distort the interpretation of evidence in a direction that favors the known preferences of their superior. This has the potential to adversely influence audit quality by threatening the objectivity with which evidence is evaluated. We, however, find results consistent with auditors perceiving their superior's known preference to be conveying normatively relevant information. Our results show, across both auditors from Australia and South Korea, that there are greater levels of predecisional distortion toward a preference held by a superior perceived to have relatively higher levels of expertise than toward a preference held by a superior perceived to have relatively lower levels of expertise. To the extent that auditors accurately perceive their superior's expertise, predecisional distortion of evidence may contribute to, rather than detract from, audit quality. Notwithstanding the potential for differences in hierarchical culture to influence the way in which auditors respond to the known preferences of their superior, our findings are consistent across auditors from Australia and South Korea. This suggests that the perceived expertise of the superior reduces the effect of hierarchical culture on the influence that a superior's known preference has on their subordinate's judgments. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Influence of Response Mode on Order Effects in the Interview

Two experiments involving students (N = 142 and N = 174, respectively) were conducted to investigate the effects of response mode and order on the evaluation of a hypothetical interviewee. Response mode (step-by-step or end-of-sequence) and order of positive and negative interview responses were manipulated in both studies. Competing hypotheses based on the belief adjustment model and predecisional distortion were tested. In both studies, the evaluation of the hypothetical candidate was more consistent with predictions of the belief adjustment model than with predecisional distortion. The results suggest that structured interviews are not immune to order effects. Furthermore, the belief adjustment model may be used to predict whether primacy or recency effects in interviews are likely to occur.

From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.

This 2-part study explored how exposure to negative pretrial publicity (Neg-PTP) influences the jury process, as well as possible mechanisms responsible for its biasing effects on decisions. Study Part A explored how PTP and jury deliberations affect juror/jury verdicts, memory, and impressions of the defendant and attorneys. One week before viewing a criminal trial mock-jurors (N = 320 university students) were exposed to Neg-PTP or unrelated crime stories (No-PTP). Two days later deliberating jurors came to a group decision, whereas nondeliberating jurors completed an unrelated task before making an individual decision. Neg-PTP jurors were more likely to vote guilty, make memory errors, and rate the defendant lower in credibility. Deliberation reduced Neg-PTP jurors' memory accuracy and No-PTP jurors' guilty verdicts (leniency bias). Jurors' memory and ratings of the defendant and prosecuting attorney significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings. Study Part B content analyzed 30 mock-jury deliberations and explored how PTP influenced deliberations and ultimately jury decisions. Neg-PTP juries were more likely than No-PTP juries to discuss ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and less likely to discuss judicial instructions and lack of evidence. All Neg-PTP juries mentioned PTP, after instructed otherwise, and rarely corrected jury members who mentioned PTP. Discussion of ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and lack of evidence significantly mediated the effect of PTP on jury-level guilt ratings. Together the findings suggest that judicial admonishments and deliberations may not be sufficient to reduce PTP bias, because of memory errors, biased impressions, and predecisional distortion.

Predecisional information distortion in physicians’ diagnostic judgments: Strengthening a leading hypothesis or weakening its competitor?

AbstractDecision makers have been found to bias their interpretation of incoming information to support an emerging judgment (predecisional information distortion). This is a robust finding in human judgment, and was recently also established and measured in physicians’ diagnostic judgments (Kostopoulou et al. 2012). The two studies reported here extend this work by addressing the constituent modes of distortion in physicians. Specifically, we studied whether and to what extent physicians distort information to strengthen their leading diagnosis and/or to weaken a competing diagnosis. We used the “stepwise evolution of preference” method with three clinical scenarios, and measured distortion on separate rating scales, one for each of the two competing diagnoses per scenario.In Study 1, distortion in an experimental group was measured against the responses of a separate control group. In Study 2, distortion in a new experimental group was measured against participants’ own, personal responses provided under control conditions, with the two response conditions separated by a month. The two studies produced consistent results. On average, we found considerable distortion of information to weaken the trailing diagnosis but little distortion to strengthen the leading diagnosis. We also found individual differences in the tendency to engage in either mode of distortion. Given that two recent studies found both modes of distortion in lay preference (Blanchard, Carlson & Meloy, 2014; DeKay, Miller, Schley & Erford, 2014), we suggest that predecisional information distortion is affected by participant and task characteristics. Our findings contribute to the growing research on the different modes of predecisional distortion and their stability to methodological variation.

Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory

In four experiments involving choices between apartments, we decomposed predecisional information distortion into positive distortion of information about the tentatively leading alternative and negative distortion of information about the trailing alternative(s). Proleader and antitrailer distortion were roughly symmetric, with similar magnitudes in all but one test. Additionally, proleader and antitrailer distortion predicted choice with similar coefficients in all but one test. Distortion predicted choice when we used participants’ own “true” preferences as the baseline for assessing distortion and when we considered only identical information items that did not distinguish between apartments (“true” preferences cancel out for such items). Finally, predecisional distortion of apartments’ attributes predicted participants’ postdecision memories for those attributes, with positive and negative distortions predicting corresponding memory errors. This effect appears to reflect the predecisional encoding of information about the leading and trailing alternatives rather than a response bias or other postdecision process favoring the chosen alternative.

Biased Predecisional Processing of Leading and Nonleading Alternatives

When people obtain information about choice alternatives in a set one attribute at a time, they rapidly identify a leading alternative. Although previous research has established that people then distort incoming information, it is unclear whether distortion occurs through favoring of the leading alternative, disfavoring of the trailing alternative, or both. Prior examinations have not explored the predecisional treatment of the nonleading alternative (or alternatives) because they conceptualized distortion as a singular construct in binary choice and measured it using a relative item comparing the evaluation of both alternatives simultaneously. In this article, we introduce a measure of distortion at the level of the alternative, which allows for measuring whether predecisional distortion favors or disfavors every alternative being considered in choice sets of various sizes. We report that both proleader and antitrailer distortion occur and that the use of antitrailer processing differs between binary choices and multiple-options choices.

Timing and Type of Pretrial Publicity Affect Mock-Jurors’ Decisions and Predecisional Distortion

This experiment administered pretrial publicity (PTP) using a <i>spaced</i> procedure in which mock-jurors were exposed to eight PTP stories over a period of 10 to 12 days prior to viewing a murder trial and making verdict decisions. The type of PTP varied, with mock-jurors in the <i>pure</i> PTP conditions receiving only one type of PTP (negative only or positive only) and those in the <i>mixed</i> conditions receiving both negative and positive PTP. Jurors in the mixed conditions either received PTP in an <i>alternating</i> fashion (e.g., negative, positive, negative, positive) or a <i>blocked</i> fashion (e.g., negative, negative, positive, positive). The spacing of PTP and the mixed PTP exposure allowed us to examine recency and primacy effects associated with PTP exposure, as well as predecisional distortion during PTP exposure. PTP exposure resulted in recency effects for mock-jurors’ choice of current case leader while reading the PTP stories. Primacy effects were found for mean distortion scores measured during PTP exposure and for verdicts. Although jurors in our mixed PTP conditions received the same positive and negative PTP stories, they significantly differed on mean distortion scores and verdicts as a function of the timing/order of these stories.

Commitment to a developing preference and predecisional distortion of information

People tend to distort their evaluation of decision-relevant information in favor of the currently preferred alternative. We test whether this predecisional distortion of information is amplified by increased commitment to that current preference. We manipulated commitment, without changing the preferred option’s content, by requiring participants to indicate their preference either by circling or by darkening a sizable box (cf. feature-positive effect). Experiment 1 revealed that the effort to darken substantially increased predecisional distortion. Experiment 2 ruled out elaboration as an explanation for the effect of darkening. Experiment 3 showed that, among participants who attributed the darkening effort to an external source, predecisional distortion decreased when the source was believed to summon effort. These findings suggest that the developing commitment to a tentatively preferred alternative is one driver of predecisional distortion.

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.

How persuasive messages can influence behavior without awareness

A persuasive message that favors one option in a binary choice can enhance the apparent value of its target by biasing the interpretation of subsequent information. The message installs its target as the initial leader in preference and lets the predecisional distortion of information defend that leadership position. An experiment that contrasts showing TV commercials before and after objective product information demonstrates this process. Ratings of the importance of the commercials to the choice indicate that people are aware of advertising's direct effect on their choice but not of its indirect effect through the biased evaluation of the product information.

Information distortion in self-other decision making

In both organizational and social arenas, individuals make decisions for themselves and for other individuals. But research in decision making has provided little input into whether or how these decisions are psychologically different. In this paper, I propose that decisions—depending on whom they are for—vary according to the extent of information distortion, such that, individuals who choose for themselves demonstrate more postdecisional distortion, yet less predecisional distortion than individuals who choose on behalf of others. To test this hypothesis, participants in an experiment made a decision between two restaurants. Attributes about each restaurant were presented sequentially, and preferences were measured following each attribute. As expected, participants who chose for themselves experienced more postdecisional distortion. However, among participants who chose on behalf of others, greater distortion of predecisional attribute information was observed. These findings shed light on the differences in self-other decision making, as well as on research concerning information distortion.

Cognitive Consequences of Political Loyalty

ABSTRACT There is much evidence for the fact that people do not modify their political beliefs when confronted with new data. The concept of predecisional distortion of information was applied in the study to determine whether people distort the information itself or the global judgements. A second focus of the study was on the influence of quality of information and cognitive effort put in distortion process. Loyal supporters of rightist and leftist political parties were presented with the same information attributed either to the candidate from their favourite party or to their political opponent varying on the level of ambiguity. It was found that loyal opponents always displayed robust distortion on the level of global evaluations. However, the distortion on the level of assimilation of new data was present only when information was ambiguous enough to be manipulated. It was also found that this process induces much more effort in making the evaluation.

Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components

Predecisional distortion is the pre-choice biasing of attribute evaluations to favor the option that is leading in a decision maker’s mind. It is proposed that predecisional distortion of product attributes results from the biased construction of attribute component valuations during the choice process. An implication of this component valuation hypothesis is that consumers who value relevant attribute components before the choice process will exhibit less predecisional distortion than those who do not. This prediction was examined in two preferential choice studies. Data from Study 1 revealed that consideration of a component list prior to choice reduced predecisional distortion to negligible levels. Study 2 examined predecisional distortion during a real choice between two bottles of wine. Results showed that participants did not distort attributes based on components they had previously valued, but did distort attributes based on components they had not previously valued. Data from both studies revealed that participants who were exposed to attribute components before the choice process were less confident in the leading option during the choice process. The paper concludes with a discussion of how prior valuation of attribute components might be used to ameliorate other choice anomalies.

Understanding pretrial publicity: predecisional distortion of evidence by mock jurors.

Prejudicial pretrial publicity (PTP) constitutes a serious source of juror bias. The current study examined differences in predecisional distortion for mock jurors exposed to negative PTP (N-PTP) versus nonexposed control participants. According to work by K. A. Carlson and J. E. Russo (2001), predecisional distortion occurs when jurors bias new evidence in favor of their current leading party (prosecution or defense) rather than evaluating this information for its actual probative properties. Jury-eligible university students (N=116) acted as jurors in a mock trial. Elevated rates of guilty verdicts were observed in the N-PTP condition. Predecisional distortion scores were significantly higher in the N-PTP condition and reflected a proprosecution bias. The effect of prejudicial PTP on verdict outcomes was mediated by predecisional distortion in the evaluation of testimony. Results are discussed in relation to motivated decision making and confirmation biases.

Predecisional Distortion of Evidence as a Consequence of Real-Time Audit Review

With the current shift toward real-time audit review, subordinates become aware of supervisors' views earlier in the audit process. I use an experiment to examine whether earlier knowledge of supervisors' views increases subordinates' tendencies to agree with those views because subordinates predecisionally distort evidence. In a going-concern task, I find that auditors who learn the partner's view before evaluating evidence (1) evaluate individual evidence items as more consistent with the partner's view, and (2) make going-concern judgments that are more consistent with the partner's view, than do auditors who learn the same partner's view after evaluating evidence. In a second experiment, I examine whether auditors anticipate the distortion's effect on subordinates' judgments. I find that auditors expect subordinates to make judgments that agree with supervisors' views, but auditors do not expect subordinates to agree even more with those views when subordinates learn those views earlier in the audit process.

Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors.

Predecisional distortion is jurors' biased interpretation of new evidence to support whichever verdict is tentatively favored as a trial progresses. In 2 experiments, students and prospective jurors distorted evidence from a mock trial. Further, the magnitude of prospective jurors' distortion was twice that of students. Consistent with previous research, distortion increased with juror confidence in whichever verdict was currently leading. In spite of clear instructions to ignore prior beliefs, general proplaintiff or prodefendant attitudes influenced the verdicts of prospective jurors, but not of students. These findings suggest that jury instructions should warn against not only premature decisions but also any tentative judgments, lest such opinions influence jurors' evaluations of subsequent evidence. Predecisional distortion in jury trials may lead to biased outcomes resulting from evidence order effects.