The Influence of Cognitive Heuristics and Stereotypes About Greek Letter Organizations on Jury Decisions Allison Kramer and Michele Van Volkom* Monmouth University

https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.1.51

ABSTRACT. The current study utilized data from 140 participants ranging in age from 18–35 years old (M = 19.66, SD = 1.84) to test whether a defendant’s affiliation with a Greek letter organization would result in biased jury decisions. Participants read a short case summary about a college aged man arrested for driving under the influence. The defendant in question was described as either being a member of a fraternity, or an affiliation was not mentioned. Participants were then asked a series of questions regarding their perception of the defendant and asked to determine a final verdict. In addition to the defendant’s affiliation, participants’ affiliation with Greek life was also taken into consideration. Results indicated that nonaffiliated participants were less attracted to the defendant (p = .05). Main effects were also found for both participants’ affiliation and the defendant’s affiliation on guilty ratings. Guilty ratings were higher when the defendant was affiliated with Greek life, compared to when the defendant was not affiliated with Greek life (p = .04). Additionally, nonaffiliated participants rated the defendant as more guilty than affiliated participants (p = .03). Gender differences were also found, indicating that men were more lenient in verdict decisions compared to women (p = .002). These results can be used to understand factors that influence jury decisions, including the use of cognitive heuristics and biases within the court system.

hen people hear the words fraternity The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the or sorority, what are the first words that United States of America declares that every citizen W come to mind: drinking, partying, hazing? has the right to a fair trial. However, jurors often Due to how Greek life (i.e., activities performed succumb to implicit biases which can influence by members of a fraternity or sorority) has been their decision-making processes (Colwell, 2005). portrayed by the media, people might have begun Understanding the different factors that can to associate fraternities and sororities with problem lead to these biases is the first step in overcoming behaviors such as binge drinking or hazing pledges. them. It is important to investigate these factors in The overall belief about the perception of Greek order to ensure that the court system is upholding letter organizations is often negative (Tollini & its duty to ensure fair and unbiased trials. The Wilson, 2010). This negative stereotype about the organizations and those affiliated with the purpose of the current study was to understand the organizations may have harmful implications potential influence that stereotypes about Greek both on and off campus. These stereotypes may letter organizations have on jury decisions. More specifically, the study sought to determine whether not only contribute to distrust among member SPRING 2018 and nonmember students (Warber, Taylor, & disclosure of a Greek life affiliation of a defendant, Makstaller, 2011), but also have the potential accused of driving under the influence, would affect PSI CHI JOURNAL OF to impact decisions made in a court of law. jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Heuristics in the Court Room suggested that attractiveness leads to lesser sen- Every U.S. citizen has the right to a fair trial accord- tences (e.g., Gunnell & Ceci, 2010). Results from ing to the Constitution. Although unbiased trials these studies indicate that the social and physical cannot be guaranteed, one factor that can hinder attraction a juror feels toward a defendant could this basic right is the use of heuristics by juries. possibly influence the verdict decision. People have the tendency to allow individual A factor that also tends to promote the use preferences, expectations, and experiences to influ- of heuristics in the judicial system, is pretrial ence the decision making process (Colwell, 2005). publicity. Many studies have examined the effect Cognitive heuristics are mental shortcuts often used of pretrial publicity on jury decisions and how it when a person has to make a difficult decision (Saks may contribute to the use of availability heuristics & Kidd, 1981). Common heuristics used in court (Daftary-Kapur, Penrod, O’Connor, & Wallace, situations include the representative heuristic and 2014; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994; Platania & availability heuristic (Colwell, 2005). Both of the Crawford, 2012). Media coverage of certain court aforementioned mental shortcuts involve making cases influences how common people believe those decisions based on faulty beliefs surrounding the types of cases to be and creates the illusion that probability of an event occurring. In the context of uncommon situations occur more frequently than a court room, these faulty mental processes could in reality (Folkes, 1988). manifest as jurors believing a prosecutor’s case Pretrial publicity can also influence how a simply because it fits into common beliefs held by jury perceives a defendant or plaintiff of a case. the jury rather than being proven by the actual facts Mock jurors who read about negative aspects of of the case. Consequently, this often results in unfair a defendant’s character were more likely to rule verdict decisions and evidentially jail time or costly that the defendant was guilty than jurors who did fines for the defendant in question. not read about negative characteristics, despite the Heuristics are most often employed when information presented during the trials being the the decision making process seems difficult. same (Otto et al., 1994). Jurors who read the nega- Determining a verdict has the potential to be both tive information entered the trial with preconceived challenging and stressful, particularly when a case notions that the defendant was a bad person and is complex. A study by Cooper, Bennett, and Sukel allowed that information to bias the final verdict. (1996) found that jurors used mental shortcuts to This is often a side effect of pretrial publicity. come to a verdict when a case was difficult to under- Pre-existing beliefs also influence jury decisions stand. Jurors were exposed to an expert testimony (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2014). When participants read given by either a person with high credentials (i.e., the trial proceedings of a case against a European multiple degrees from prestigious universities, cur- American police officer accused of manslaughter rently involved in research, 45 published articles), of an African American male, the mock jurors with or a person with moderate credentials (i.e., degrees pre-existing beliefs that police were racists were from small universities, not involved in research, more likely to vote that the police officer was guilty. few publications). Despite hearing the same The information presented during the trial did testimony, jurors in the highly credentialed expert little to mitigate the jurors’ pre-existing beliefs. The condition voted in favor of the plaintiff more often tendency for people to use availability heuristics and than jurors in the moderately credentialed expert pre-existing beliefs when making jury decisions is condition. Jurors allowed perceptions of the expert a major issue for the judicial system. Groups that witness to influence how they made their decision. have negative stereotypes fight a losing battle in Another factor that could potentially influ- court. Negative media surrounds certain groups ence a juror’s perception of a defendant and the of people and maintains the associated stereotypes accompanying verdict is the perceived attractive- that make fair trials difficult to obtain. One of those ness of the defendant. Early research showed that groups is members of Greek letter organizations on jurors tend to give more lenient verdict decisions to college campuses. defendants they find physically attractive (Stephan & Tully, 1977), are less confident in their decision Stereotypes About Greek Letter Organizations SPRING 2018 of guilt for defendants that are perceived as attrac- Due to information provided by multiple sources tive (Efran, 1974), and rate defendants found to including the media (e.g., Neighbors, Animal House), PSI CHI JOURNAL OF be socially unattractive as more guilty (Griffitt people might have formed stereotypes about PSYCHOLOGICAL & Jackson, 1973). More recent research has also members of Greek letter organizations. Common RESEARCH

52 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Kramer and Van Volkom | Heuristics and Jury Decisions stereotypes that are associated with Greek letter reaction times on an implicit bias assessment where organizations, fraternities in particular, are that participants had to match pictures with the word members engage in excessive drinking, haze good or bad. Participants had faster reaction times pledges, are sexually promiscuous, are arrogant, when the word bad was matched up with pictures and pay for friends (Tollini & Wilson, 2010). relating to fraternities and sororities, indicating that Although research has supported that members participants had implicit biases toward members of Greek life drink more than nonmembers (Baer, of Greek organizations. If a member of a fraternity 1994; Eberhardt, Rice, & Smith, 2003), the other or sorority was to be put on trial, these biases and stereotypes about members are not empirically stereotypes against Greek letter organizations could supported. The existence of these beliefs is often have detrimental effects on the final verdict. due to media coverage of extreme cases and can be Research has demonstrated that implicit biases explained using the availability heuristic described towards members of Greek letter organizations exist previously. Conversely, it can be argued that posi- (Wells & Corts, 2008), but the influence of these tive facts about those affiliated with Greek-life are biases in situations other than personal interactions rarely newsworthy. Another stereotype involving has not been studied. Previous research has also fraternities and sororities is that members are often identified a variety of factors that can influence assumed to be less intelligent than other students jury decisions such as race (Lynch & Haney, (Tollini & Wilson, 2010). People may assume that 2011), perceived similarity (Mitchell & Byrne, members’ focus is on the social aspect of college 1973), attractiveness (Weiten & Diamond, 1979) and not the academic aspect. However, members and pretrial publicity (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2014). of Greek life have been found to develop more What research has yet to examine is the effect of academically and personally during college than stereotypes about Greek life organizations on jury nonmembers (Pike, 2003). A study of 650 college decisions. The current study added to research campuses across the country found that students by bridging the gap between these two topics. We affiliated with a Greek letter organization had more examined how jury decisions may be altered based interaction with faculty, were involved in more com- on a defendant disclosing information of affiliation munity service projects, participated in more cocur- with a Greek organization or not. It was predicted ricular activities, and were more engaged in active that when the defendant disclosed being a mem- learning than those not affiliated with a fraternity ber of a Greek letter organization, participants or sorority (Hayek, Carini, O’Day, & Kuh, 2002). would judge the defendant as being more guilty As these studies show, there are many advantageous and deserving of a more severe punishment. aspects to being a member of a fraternity or sorority Participants were also expected to rate the affili- that most people do not realize. ated defendant lower on interpersonal attraction. Although in reality there are many positive However, when the participant was also a member aspects of Greek letter organizations, a phenom- of a Greek letter organization, it was predicted enon called in-group favoritism could potentially that the defendant would be judged as less guilty, contribute to the negative connotation surround- deserving of a less severe punishment, and higher ing fraternities and sororities due to a tendency on interpersonal attraction. These predictions for people to view those belonging to a different were based on past research on how members of group as outsiders (Aronson & Aronson, 2012). Greek letter organizations are perceived and how The influence this concept has on how someone heuristics work within the court system. views others, can be seen in a study during which participants were randomly assigned to two groups Method and asked to rate participants in the opposite Participants group (Crocker, Thompson, McGraw, & Ingreman, The data used in this study were collected from 140 1987). Participants rated those who were in the undergraduate students from a private Northeast- other group more negatively than those in their ern University. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to own group. The same phenomenon has been 35 years old (M = 19.66, SD = 1.84). There were 39 studied in reference to Greek life (Warber et al., men, 100 women, and one participant who failed 2011). Students who are not affiliated with Greek to report gender. The sample was comprised of SPRING 2018 life hold beliefs that students affiliated with Greek 38.6% first-year students, 25% sophomores, 29.3% PSI CHI life engage in more deviant behaviors and are less juniors, 6.4% seniors, and one participant (0.7%) JOURNAL OF trustworthy. Wells and Corts (2008) examined who did not report a school-year classification. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Although many of the participants were humanities utilized a modified version of the Interpersonal and social science majors, a variety of other majors Attraction Scale (McCroskey & McCain, 1974) to were represented as well (see Table 1). Additionally, measure how participants perceived the defendant. 37.1% (n = 52) of participants were members of Out of the three original subscales, participants Greek life (e.g., in a fraternity or sorority) or were completed the Task Attraction and Social Attraction in the process of becoming a member and 62.9% subscales. The Task Attraction subscale included (n = 88) of participants were not involved in Greek items such as “He is a typical goof-off at work” life in any way. Participants were selected using both and “I could not get anything accomplished with a convenience sampling of a research participation him.” The Social Attraction subscale included pool and a convenience sample of university stu- items such as “We could never establish a personal dents outside of the participation pool. Participants friendship with each other” and “It would be dif- from the participation pool were awarded credits ficult to meet and talk with him.” The two original toward a research participation grade for their subscales were analyzed together to create one psychology classes. However, participants recruited interpersonal attraction score. The Cronbach’s α from outside of the pool were not compensated. for this revised scale was .86. A total of 10 items, All participants followed a procedure approved by some of which were reversed scored, were on the the participating university’s Institutional Review questionnaire. Participants rated each statement on Board. a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly agreed) to 7 (strongly disagreed). To score the questionnaire, Materials all ratings were added up; low scores indicated that Case summary. Each participant was given a short participants were less attracted to the defendant, case summary that described a fictional situation. and high scores indicated a higher attraction to The summary described the charge against a male the defendant. college student accused of driving under the influ- Final verdict. The questionnaire given to each ence. The confrontation between the defendant participant contained two items that comprised the and the arresting officer was described in addition final verdict. One item measured how guilty partici- to personal details about the defendant. The case pants believed the defendant was. The item asked summary was the manipulated variable in this participants how guilty they found the defendant experiment. For one group, being a member of a on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not guilty) fraternity was included in the list of activities and to 7 (guilty). Each questionnaire also included organizations of which the defendant was a part a question to measure how severe participants (see Appendix A). In the case summary for the believed the defendant’s punishment should be. second condition, membership in a fraternity was This question was also rated on a 7-point Likert-type not mentioned (see Appendix B). Participants were scale from 1 (minimum punishment) to 7 (maximum told to judge the defendant based on the details punishment). described in the case summary. Manipulation check. An activities checklist was Interpersonal Attraction Scale. This study given for participants to fill out which acted as the manipulation check for the experiment. The list consisted of seven different activities and organiza- TABLE 1 tions of which the defendant could potentially be Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Major a member. Participants had to check off all of the Frequency (N) Percent activities or organizations that were listed in the case Humanities and Social Science 76 54.2 summary. The activity of interest was fraternity/ sorority, which provided information on whether Nursing and Health Studies 23 16.4 participants noticed that the defendant was in a Business 21 15.0 Greek letter organization or not. Science (i.e., Biology, Chemistry, and Computer Science) 8 5.7 Demographics. The last piece of information Social Work 6 4.3 that participants filled out was a demographics Undeclared 3 2.1 form, which included information such as age, sex, Education 1 0.7 major, and year in school. The demographics sheet also asked participants to check off one of two state- Math 1 0.7 ments. The first statement was that the participant No Response 1 0.7 was a member of a Greek letter organization on

54 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Kramer and Van Volkom | Heuristics and Jury Decisions campus or was in the process of becoming a mem- any questions and thanked participants for taking ber. The second option was that the participant the time and effort to participate in the study as was not affiliated with a Greek letter organization the participants left the lab. Due to an initial lack in any way. Participants were told to check off the of participants affiliated with Greek life, additional statement that best represented them. participants were recruited from outside of the research participation pool. Participants recruited Design in this fashion were approached on campus and The study was a 2 (Affiliation of Participant) x 2 asked if they were a member of a Greek letter (Affiliation of Defendant) factorial design. The organization or were in the process of becoming a manipulated variable was the Greek life affiliation member. The researcher then asked students affili- of the defendant in the court case summary. In ated with a Greek letter organization if they would the summary, the defendant was either described be willing to participate in a study. Students who as being a member of a fraternity along with agreed were given the same materials in the same involvement in other activities, or involvement in order as all other participants. Informed consent Greek life was not mentioned. Participants were and debriefing forms were also given and read in randomly assigned to the different conditions. The the same way as all other participants. second variable was the Greek life affiliation of the participants; this was not able to be manipulated. All Results participants indicated whether they were affiliated Manipulation Check with a Greek letter organization or not affiliated. Because this study aimed to investigate whether The dependent variables measured in the study the Greek life affiliation of a defendant would were guilty ratings, severity of punishment, and influence jury decisions, a manipulation check was interpersonal attractiveness of the defendant, which needed in order to ensure that participants noticed were all measured using questionnaire items. whether the defendant in the case summary was in a fraternity or not. An activities checklist was utilized Procedure as the manipulation check. Out of the total 140 After institutional review board approval (#SP1730) participants, 92% (N = 129) of participants correctly was obtained, research sessions consisting of identified the Greek life affiliation of the defendant approximately eight participants at a time began. in the case summary. Upon entering the lab, participants were informed to sit in any available seat. Once all participants Guilty Ratings were present, two copies of the informed consent The influence of Greek life affiliation on guilty script were given to each student; one to sign and ratings was examined using a factorial Analysis of return to the researcher, and the other to keep. Variance (ANOVA). It was hypothesized that the The signed consent form was then filed separately affiliation of the defendant would influence guilty from all other data collected during the study. ratings. This hypothesis was supported F(1,136) Participants were then given a brief scenario to = 4.20, p = .04, partial eta2 = .03. The defendant read over describing the events leading up to a affiliated with Greek life was given higher guilty male college student being arrested for driving ratings than the defendant not affiliated with under the influence. In the scenario, the defendant Greek life (see Table 2). It was also hypothesized was described as either being affiliated with Greek- that participants’ affiliation with Greek life would life on campus or not affiliated with Greek-life influence guilty ratings. This was also found to on campus. Participants read the court case for be significant, F(1,136) = 4.75, p = .03, partial 1 minute before the researcher collected it and eta2 = .03. Participants affiliated with Greek life handed each participant a questionnaire packet, rated the defendant as less guilty than participants including the modified Interpersonal Attraction not affiliated with Greek life. The last hypothesis Scale, final verdict questions, activities checklist, regarding guilty ratings was that, when both a and demographics form. Upon completion of the participant and the defendant were affiliated with packet, the researcher collected the questionnaires Greek life, the participant would give lower guilty and provided all participants with a debriefing ratings compared to when a participant was not SPRING 2018 form to take home. Participants were told to read affiliated with Greek life and the defendant was. PSI CHI the debriefing form silently while the researcher However, results did not support this hypothesis, JOURNAL OF 2 read it out loud. The researcher then answered F(1,136) = 0.44, p = .51, partial eta = .003. There PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

was no significant interaction between defendant recommendations given by participants. Results did and participant affiliation on guilty ratings. not support this hypothesis, F(1,136) = 0.02, p = .90, partial eta2 = .0001. Participants did not recommend Punishment Severity a more severe punishment to the defendant affili- The influence of Greek life affiliation on punish- ated with Greek life compared to the defendant not ment severity was also tested. A factorial ANOVA affiliated with Greek life (see Table 3). Participants’ Greek life affiliation was also hypothesized to influ- was used to test this relationship. It was hypoth- ence severity of punishment ratings. This was also esized that the Greek life affiliation of the defen- found to be not significant, F(1,136) = 0.49, p = .49, dant would influence the punishment severity partial eta2 = .004. Participants in Greek life did not give lower severity recommendations than nonaffili- TABLE 2 ated participants. The interaction between Greek Means and Standard Deviations for Greek Life life affiliation and participant affiliation was also not Affiliation of Participants and the Defendant significant, F(1,136) = 1.90, p = .17, partial eta2 = .01. on Guilty Ratings There was no significant difference between Greek Affiliation of Participant life affiliation of participants and of the defendant Not Affiliated Overall M and punishment severity recommendations. Affiliation of Defendant Affiliated Not Affiliated 4.84 (1.43) 4.03 (1.94) 4.43 Interpersonal Attraction Affiliated 5.23 (1.35) 4.80 (1.77) 5.02 The last relationship examined was between participants’ Greek life affiliation, Greek life affiliation Overall M 5.03 4.42 of the defendant, and interpersonal attraction. A Note. N for each cell = 20–49. The main effect for affiliation of participant was significant, F(1, 136) = 4.75, p = .031, partial eta2 = .03. The main effect for affiliation of defendant was factorial ANOVA was conducted to test the influ- significant,F (1,136) = 4.20, p = .04, partial eta2 = .03. The interaction was not significant. ence of participants’ Greek life affiliation and the defendant’s Greek life affiliation on interpersonal attraction. It was hypothesized that a main effect TABLE 3 would be found for affiliation of the defendant Means and Standard Deviations for Greek Life such that participants would be more attracted to Affiliation of Participants and the Defendant the defendant who was not a member of a fraternity on Punishment Severity compared to the defendant in a fraternity. This Affiliation of Participant hypothesis was not supported, F(1, 136) = 3.53, 2 Not Affiliated Overall M p = .06, partial eta = .03. There was no difference Affiliation of Defendant Affiliated in attraction score between the defendant affiliated Not Affiliated 3.80 (1.34) 3.97 (1.36) 3.88 with Greek life and the defendant not affiliated with Affiliated 4.18 (1.37) 3.65 (1.69) 3.92 Greek life (see Table 4). It was also hypothesized that participants in Greek life would be more Overall M 3.99 3.81 attracted to the defendant than participants not Note. N for each cell = 20–49. The main effects for affiliation of the defendant and affiliation of the participant were not significant. The interaction effect was not significant. in Greek life. Results supported this hypothesis, F(1,136) = 3.98, p = .05, partial eta2 = .03. Partici- pants affiliated with Greek life scored higher on TABLE 4 interpersonal attraction compared to participants Means and Standard Deviations for Greek Life not affiliated with Greek life. An interaction effect Affiliation of Participants and the Defendant was also hypothesized so that attraction would be on Interpersonal Attraction higher when both a participant and the defendant Affiliation of Participant were affiliated with Greek life compared to when a

Not Affiliated Affiliated Overall M participant was not affiliated and the defendant was. Affiliation of Defendant This hypothesis was not supported, F(1,136) = 0.04, Not Affiliated 41.82 (10.22) 44.81 (7.44) 43.31 p = .84, partial eta2 = .0003. The interaction between Affiliated 44.62 (9.87) 48.3 (9.02) 46.46 participant affiliation and defendant affiliation did SPRING 2018 Overall M 43.22 46.56 not influence interpersonal attraction.

PSI CHI Note. N for each cell = 20–49. The main effect for affiliation of the participant was significant, F = 3.98, p = .048, partial eta2 = .03. The main effect for affiliation of the defendant and the Participant Gender JOURNAL OF interaction effect were not significant. PSYCHOLOGICAL Although not part of the original hypotheses, an RESEARCH

56 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Kramer and Van Volkom | Heuristics and Jury Decisions exploratory analysis was conducted to investigate believe that a defendant committed a crime when whether sex influenced any of the verdict factors that defendant fits into the stereotype surround- or interpersonal attraction. A t test was conducted ing those who typically commit that crime. Due to comparing the means given by each sex on guilt, the belief that members of Greek life drink more punishment severity, and interpersonal attraction. frequently than nonmembers, jurors would be Significant differences were found between men more likely to believe that a member of a Greek and women’s ratings of punishment severity, t(137) organization committed a drinking related crime. = 3.17, p = .002 (two-tailed), effect size d = .59, and Findings from the present study supported this guilt ratings, t(137) = 2.56, p = .012 (two-tailed), idea because participants rated the defendant effect size d = .46. Men rated the defendant lower affiliated with a fraternity higher in guilt compared on both suggested punishment severity (M = 3.33, to the defendant not affiliated with Greek life. The SD = 1.49) and guilt (M = 4.21, SD = 1.84) com- accusation under investigation was whether the pared to women’s ratings of punishment severity defendant was drunk driving or not. Participants (M = 4.16, SD = 1.34) and guilt (M = 4.98, were more likely to believe that the defendant in SD = 1.50). Overall, men gave a more lenient verdict the fraternity was guilty of drunk driving than the than women. defendant not in Greek life, despite the details of the case being the same. Discussion Past research has also found that perceived The goal of this study was to investigate potential similarity and attraction toward a defendant influ- biasing effects that occur when Greek life affiliation enced jury decisions (Mitchell & Byrne, 1973). The of a defendant is disclosed to members of a jury. lack of significant interaction effects in the present The researchers hypothesized that, when a defen- study goes against past findings that jurors are more dant disclosed information regarding an affiliation lenient toward defendants similar to themselves. with a fraternity, the participants acting as mock Participants affiliated with Greek life did not give jurors would give the defendant a higher guilty different ratings for guilt, attraction, or punishment rating, recommend a more severe punishment, severity to the defendant affiliated with Greek life and be less attracted to the defendant compared compared to the defendant not affiliated with to when the defendant’s affiliation with Greek Greek life. However, significant differences were letter organizations was not mentioned. Results found between men and women regarding guilt found that participants gave higher guilty ratings and punishment ratings. Men gave lower ratings to the defendant who was a member of a fraternity. in both categories compared to women. Similar- Additionally, exploratory analyses revealed that ity could play a role in these results due to the men were more lenient toward the defendant, defendant also being a man around the same age as giving lower guilty ratings and lower severity of participants. The inconsistent results on similarity punishment ratings, compared to women. This could indicate that perceived similarity does not finding warrants further research attention because play as big of a role in influencing jury decisions as sex differences in perceptions of guilt, as well as other factors such as attraction. In the present study, punishment recommendations, may have crucial attraction was found to have an influence on guilty implications in actual court cases. ratings. Participants affiliated with Greek life were more attracted to the defendant and also rated the Implications defendant as less guilty compared to participants Although previous research has not attempted to not affiliated with Greek life. connect stereotypes about Greek letter organiza- The current study also strengthened the litera- tions and their potentially biasing effects on jury ture on the biases surrounding Greek life organiza- decisions, there have been multiple studies on other tions on college campuses. Results indicated that factors that influence jury decisions. The findings participants gave the defendant who was a member from the current study tie into past research on of a fraternity higher guilt ratings. This can be tied the use of heuristics when making jury decisions into past research that has found that students in many ways. Past research has found that a believe members of Greek letter organizations are main stereotype held about members of Greek more likely to engage in deviant behavior (Warber SPRING 2018 letter organizations is excessive alcohol use (Baer, et al., 2011). These results also support the concept PSI CHI 1994; Tollini & Wilson, 2010). According to the that people have implicit, negative biases toward JOURNAL OF representative heuristic, jurors are more likely to members of Greek letter organizations (Wells PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

& Corts, 2008). Participants were more likely to aside from one sentence added to half of the case believe that the defendant was guilty of drinking summaries indicating that the defendant was a and driving when the defendant was described as member of a fraternity. Additionally, all sessions being in a fraternity. were conducted in the same lab location and every- thing was presented in the same order. An already Strengths and Limitations established measure was also used to measure the Although the results of the current study contrib- interpersonal attraction each participant felt toward uted to the understanding of how heuristics are the defendant, and despite slight modifications to used in court decisions, there are some limitations the questionnaire, the measure was found to be that need to be discussed. The current study utilized reliable. The manipulation was also successful with a relatively small sample size, which might have a majority of participants recognizing whether the affected the power and limited the study’s ability defendant they read about was in a Greek organiza- to find significance. The study also has limited tion or not. Another strength of the study was that generalizability to the outside world. Participants it studied a new concept not yet covered by past were expected to act as mock jurors and react to research. All findings added to the understanding the situation as if it was a real trial. However, the of factors that influence the use of heuristics in testing environment did not mimic a true court jury decisions and possible implications of being a environment. Testing sessions were conducted in member of Greek life. a lab at a university, and participants were not able to discuss their opinions with each other. In reality, Future Directions trials take place in a courthouse, and jurors are It is important to continue research on this topic encouraged to discuss the case in order to come to further the understanding of the relationship to a conclusion. Also, participants might not have between a defendant’s affiliation with Greek life and taken their decision as seriously as real jurors do how that information may influence jury decisions. because, participants’ verdict decisions in the study Future studies should attempt to create a more had no real impact on the defendant’s life. realistic jury setting in order to increase external Another limitation was the methodology of validity. Also, more information should be given the study. Due to the hybrid nature of the study, about the defendant and the case itself on which participants’ Greek life affiliation could not be participants can base their decisions. Researchers manipulated, and the researcher was not able to should consider taping a fake trial consisting of ensure an equal and sufficient number of par- opening statements, testimonies, and closing ticipants in each experimental group. To mediate remarks to make the case seem more realistic and this restriction, participants outside the initial capture participants’ attention. participant pool had to be recruited. Future studies should also focus on collecting All participants being from the same midsized data from a more diverse sample such as including university was also a restriction. The view par- multiple universities of different sizes, or utilizing a ticipants held of Greek life may not be the same sample of participants who are no longer in college as those held by students at a school with more to test whether stereotypes about Greek life change prominent Greek life involvement such as large later in life. Additionally, different types of crimes universities in the south. Participants might not should be studied to investigate whether jurors have been exposed to as many events that sup- are more likely to use heuristics for certain crimes. port Greek life stereotypes such as large parties, Some crimes to consider for future studies are which would limit their biases toward members of robbery or financial fraud. Studies examining these fraternities and sororities. A final limitation of the criminalities may find different results because current study was that it did not ask for additional there is no Greek life stereotype supporting fraud demographics outside of questions such as age and like there is for drinking and driving. sex (e.g., race and ethnicity of participants was not obtained). Conclusion Despite the limitations just mentioned, the This study aimed to discover whether jurors SPRING 2018 study had many strengths as well. The experimental utilized cognitive heuristics when making a jury control exhibited throughout the study was one decision about a defendant who was involved in PSI CHI JOURNAL OF of its many strengths. All materials presented to a Greek letter organization. Although results did PSYCHOLOGICAL participants were exactly the same in all conditions not support the idea that jurors based decisions RESEARCH

for punishment severity off of stereotypes and pre- Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. (1973). Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury- existing biases, the results did support that Greek defendant attitude similarity-dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1973.1.1.1 life affiliation influenced guilty ratings. Participants Gunnell, J. J., & Ceci, S. J. (2010). When emotionality trumps reason: A study of in Greek life rated the defendant as less guilty than individual processing style and juror bias. Behavioral Sciences and the participants who were not affiliated. Additionally, Law, 28, 850–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.939 Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., O’Day, R. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or tragedy: higher guilt ratings were given to the defendant Comparing student engagement levels of members of Greek-letter when involvement in a fraternity was mentioned organizations and other students. Journal of College Student Development, compared to when an affiliation with Greek life 43, 643–663. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2011). Mapping the racial bias of the white male capitol was not mentioned. The findings of this study also juror: Jury composition and the ‘empathetic divide.’ Law and Society supported the hypothesis that participants affiliated Review, 45, 69–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00428.x with Greek life would score higher on interpersonal McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. attraction toward the defendant than participants http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375845 not in Greek life. Further analyses revealed that Mitchell, H. E., & Byrne, D. (1973). The defendant’s dilemma: Effects of jurors’ men gave lower guilt ratings and less severe pun- attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034263 ishment ratings in comparison to women. Results Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The biasing impact of pretrial indicated that personal characteristics of both a publicity on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453–469. defendant and a juror can influence how a juror will https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01499050 Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, perceive a defendant. This in turn can encourage and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of the use of cognitive heuristics when making a jury College Student Development, 44, 369–382. decision and result in biased, unfair verdicts. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0031 Platania, J., & Crawford, J. (2012). Media exposure, juror decision-making, and the availability heuristic. The Jury Expert, 24, 53–58. References Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. (1981). Human information processing and adjudication: Aronson, E., & Aronson, J. (2012). The social animal (11th ed.). New York, NY: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123–160. Worth Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053225 Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol Stephan, C., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The influence of physical attractiveness of consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychology of a plaintiff on the decisions of simulated jurors. The Journal of Social Addictive Behaviors, 8, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-164x.8.1.43 Psychology, 101, 149–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9923997 Colwell, L. H. (2005). Cognitive heuristics in the context of legal decision Tollini, C., & Wilson, B. (2010). Fraternity members’ views of negative making. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 17–41. stereotypes. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/ Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How Sorority Advisors, 5, 34–44. do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379–393. Warber, K. M., Taylor, M. E., & Makstaller, D. C. (2011). A social identity approach https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01498976 to intergroup contact between fraternity and sorority members and non- Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingreman, C. (1987). Downward members. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity and comparison, prejudice, and evaluation of others: Effects of self-esteem and Sorority Advisors, 6, 15–25. threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 907–916. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.5.907 paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Daftary-Kapur, T., Penrod, S. D., O’Connor, M., & Wallace, B. (2014). Examining Behavior, 3, 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01039149 pretrial publicity in a shadow jury paradigm: Issues of slant, quantity, Wells, B., & Corts, D. P. (2008). Measuring attitudes towards sorority and persistence, and generalizability. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 462–477. fraternity members: Indication of implicit, in-group favoritism. College https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000081 Student Journal, 42, 842–846. Eberhardt, D., Rice, D. N., & Smith, L. D. (2003). Effects of Greek membership on academic integrity, alcohol abuse, and risky sexual behavior at a small Author Note. Allison Kramer, Department of Psychology, college. NASPA Journal, 41, 135–146. Monmouth University; Michele Van Volkom, Department of Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, Psychology, Monmouth University. interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a Special thanks to Psi Chi Journal reviewers for their simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45–54. support. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90044-0 Correspondence concerning this article should be Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of addressed to Allison Kramer, 31 Kenalcon Drive, Phoenixville Consumer Research, 15, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/209141 PA, 19460. E-mail: [email protected]

SPRING 2018

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B Case Summary With a Nonaffiliated Defendant Case Summary With an Affiliated Defendant

The defendant in question is a 22-year-old male college student. On campus he The defendant in question is a 22-year-old male college student. On campus he is involved in the television station, student activities board, and the club soccer is an active member of the fraternity Delta Psi Beta, involved in the television team. Around 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, October 13, the defendant was pulled over station, student activities board, and the club soccer team. Around 2:00 a.m. on in his car for speeding by Officer Morgan. The speed limit on the road was 45 Saturday, October 13, the defendant was pulled over in his car for speeding by mph, and the defendant was reportedly going 65 mph. When Officer Morgan Officer Morgan. The speed limit on the road was 45 mph, and the defendant was approached the car, he asked where the defendant had been coming from. The reportedly going 65 mph. When Officer Morgan approached the car, he asked defendant reported that he was on his way home from hanging out with a small where the defendant had been coming from. The defendant reported that he group of friends. After asking a few more questions, Officer Morgan noticed that was on his way home from hanging out with a small group of friends. After the defendant was having a difficult time focusing on what was being said to asking a few more questions, Officer Morgan noticed that the defendant was him, and was slightly slurring his words. When asked if he had been drinking having a difficult time focusing on what was being said to him, and was slightly earlier that night, the defendant denied that he had any alcohol and claimed he slurring his words. When asked if he had been drinking earlier that night, the was just tired and wanted to go home. After further questioning, Officer Morgan defendant denied that he had any alcohol and claimed he was just tired and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence. wanted to go home. After further questioning, Officer Morgan arrested the defendant for driving under the influence.

SPRING 2018

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Argosy University is a non-proﬁ t institution.

“MY GOAL IS FOR THE STUDENT TO DEVELOP THE SKILL LEVEL REQUIRED TO BECOME AN EXCELLENT PSYCHOLOGIST—SOMEONE I WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT SENDING A FAMILY MEMBER TO.”

At the College of Clinical Psychology at Argosy University, we believe in a practitioner-scholar model of training. Our programs off er a rigorous curriculum grounded in theory and research, while also off ering real-world experience. What’s more, all our PsyD programs have received accreditation from the American Psychological Association (APA), certifying that they meet the industry’s standards.

Learn more at clinical.argosy.edu/psichi

Arizona School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University American School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University | Southern California American School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University | San Francisco Bay Area Florida School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University Georgia School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University Hawai’i School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University Illinois School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University | Chicago Illinois School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University | Schaumburg Minnesota School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University American School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University | Northern Virginia

DR. MICHAEL LYNCH

Dean, Clinical Psychology Programs at Argosy University | Northern Virginia

Dr. Lynch employs an integrated approach to the instruction and mentorship of his students.

*The Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology Program at Argosy University, Atlanta, Chicago, Hawaii, Orange County, Phoenix, San Francisco Bay Area, Schaumburg, Tampa, Twin Cities and Northern Virginia is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of the American Psychological Association (APA).Questions related to the program’s accredited status should be directed to the Commission on Accreditation: Oﬃ ce of Program Consultation and Accreditation, American Psy- chological Association, 750 1st Street, NE, Washington DC 20002 Phone: (202) 336-5979 / E-mail: [email protected] / Web: www.apa.org/ed/accreditation

Argosy University is accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (985 Atlantic Ave., Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501, wscuc.org). Programs, SPRING 2018 credential levels, technology, and scheduling options are subject to change. Not all online programs are available to residents of all U.S. states. Administrative oﬃ ce: Argosy University, 601 South Lewis Street, Orange, CA 92868 ©2018 Argosy University. All rights reserved. Our email address is [email protected] PSI CHI See auprograms.info for program duration, tuition, fees and other costs, median debt, salary data, alumni success, and other important information. JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

88 COPYRIGHTAU-4620_PsiChiJournalDigitalAd_F2.indd 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL 1 HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) 2/8/18 4:46 PM ADVERTISEMENT

The Open Data badge is Psi Chi Journal’s awarded to authors who share all data necessary to reproduce First-Ever Special Issue their reported results. After a successful call-for-abstracts campaign last summer, our first special issue will officially arrive in Authors who provide all necessary materials to enable May 2018! Led by Special Invited Editor Dr. Steven V. future researchers to replicate Rouse, this issue features a variety of articles awarded their research may apply to with Open Practice Badges for providing open data receive the Open Materials and materials, preregistering their research, and/or badge. conducting a replication study. The Preregistration badge Authors of all future Psi Chi Journal articles are reflects that authors submitted encouraged to participate in our ongoing badges a basic timestamped program, which was created by members of the Open preregistration design before Science Collaboration. Any badges received will be conducting their initial research. prominently displayed on the first page of published Psi Chi Journal articles. See the upcoming special In addition to the three issue for examples of open, reliable research practices OSC-approved badges, Psi Chi encourages authors of needed to receive each badge and advance the replication studies to apply for science of psychology! our special Replications badge.

Learn more about the badges at www.psichi.org/page/journal_Badges View Psi Chi Journal submission guidelines at www.psichi.org/?page=JN_Submissions

Gain Valuable Research Experience With Psi Chi!

Students and faculty are invited to visit Psi Chi’s free Conducting Research online resource at www.psichi.org/?page=ConductingResearch. Here are three ways to get involved:

Join a Collaborative Recruit Online Participants Explore Our Research Research Project. for Your Studies. Measures Database. https://osf.io/view/StudySwap/ www.psichi.org/?page= www.psichi.org/?page= Psi Chi’s Network for study_links researchlinksdesc International Collaborative Psi Chi is dedicated to helping This database links to Exchange has partnered with members find participants to various websites featuring StudySwap, an online resource their online research studies. research measures, tools, and that shares research projects Submit a title and a brief instruments. You can search for seeking collaborators. This description of your online relevant materials by category program is open to everyone, studies to our Post a Study Tool. or keyword. If you know of regardless We regularly encourage our additional resources that could of whether your college has a members to participate in all be added, please contact Psi Chi chapter. Find a project, or listed studies. [email protected] post your own. SPRING 2018 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Call for Submissions This spring, consider submitting research to authors are welcome, and submissions will remain Psi Chi Journal that is related to help-seeking open for all other areas of psychological research. behavior. Psi Chi is launching a new 2018 initiative, Experience our rigorous, yet supportive and which will establish a toolkit of resources that educational, peer-review process for yourself. encourage people to feel comfortable seeking Our high visibility across the field and dedication help concerning a mental illness, bullying, sexual to transparent, replicable research practices harassment/abuse, tutoring, test taking, etc. makes our journal the place to submit your research today! Will you support the #Help_HelpedMe Initiative by helping us expand Psi Chi’s collection of help- Learn more about the Help_HelpedMe Initiative at seeking articles? As always, student and faculty https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.1.2

“What if we lived in a world where seeking help was considered as noble as offering help? . . . Let’s work together toward a future where seeking help is universally perceived as a psychological strength.” R. Eric Landrum, PhD Psi Chi President

SPRING 2018

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

CLIENT INFORMATION OUR JOURNAL Advertiser Advertising in Psi Chi Journal allows you to connect with established psychology researchers and mentors, as well as

Contact Name undergraduates and graduate students striving to build a career in one of the many areas of research. People regularly visit our journal online to Address | Street or P.O. Box • view current and past issues, • submit their research for publication, • learn about reviewing for Psi Chi Journal, City | State | Zip | Country • share invited editorials as teaching tools in the classroom. All issues and advertisements are permanently Phone (daytime) E-mail free online to both members and nonmembers alike. During the 2015–16 fiscal year, psichi.org received 1.67 million page views, ensuring that high-achieving students and professionals will Submitted by see your content for years to come. To further enhance the visibility of our journal, Authorized Signature latest issues and calls for submissions are regularly featured in Psi Chi Digest e-mails (180,000+ subscribers) and on our three social media platforms. • Facebook (22,500+ followers) • Twitter (4,700+ followers) DIGITAL PUBLICATION • LinkedIn (10,200+ followers) Issue Articles are also indexed in PsycINFO, EBSCO, ❏ Spring ______❏ Summer ______❏ Fall ______❏ Winter ______and Crossref databases—essential tools that researchers use to search for millions of Size/Dimensions psychology-related articles. This makes ❏ Full page (no bleed) Cost: $400 ❏ Half page (horizontal) Cost: $275 Psi Chi Journal a key place to communicate your 5 5 6 ⁄8” x 9 ¼” Black & White only 6 ⁄8” x 4 ½ ” Black & White only message with our Professional Organization’s 700,000+ lifetime members and far beyond. Price: $ AD SPECIFICATIONS Digital format: PDF, EPS, and TIFF Resolution: 300 dpi | B&W line art— 1,200 dpi Black & white ads (no RGB or 4-color process) PDF settings: Press quality, embed all fonts

DEADLINE/BILLING Payment due upon receipt of invoice. CONTACT Submit contract by e-mail to Susan Iles Advertising Sales Psi Chi Central Office E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 423-771-9964

See past issues of Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research at http://www.psichi.org/?journal_past

All advertisements must be scholarly and professional in nature, SPRING 2018 and Psi Chi reserves the right to reject (or cancel) any ads that Stay connected with PSI CHI are not in the best interest of the Organization or consistent with PSI CHI ® www.psichi.org the Society’s mission. JOURNAL OF ADV-JN-DG (05-2017) PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) 91 Publish Your Research in Psi Chi Journal Undergraduate, graduate, and faculty submissions are welcome year round. Only the first author is required to be a Psi Chi member. All submissions are free. Reasons to submit include

• a unique, doctoral-level, peer-review process • indexing in PsycINFO, EBSCO, and Crossref databases • free access of all articles at psichi.org • our efficient online submissions portal View Submission Guidelines and submit your research at www.psichi.org/?page=JN_Submissions

Become a Journal Reviewer Doctoral-level faculty in psychology and related fields who are passionate about educating others on conducting and reporting quality empirical research are invited become reviewers for Psi Chi Journal. Our editorial team is uniquely dedicated to mentorship and promoting professional development of our authors—Please join us!

To become a reviewer, visit www.psichi.org/page/JN_BecomeAReviewer

Resources for Student Research Looking for solid examples of student manuscripts and educational editorials about conducting psychological research? Download as many free articles to share in your classrooms as you would like.

Search past issues, or articles by subject area or author at www.psichi.org/?journal_past

Add Our Journal to Your Library Ask your librarian to store Psi Chi Journal issues in a database at your local institution. Librarians may also e-mail to request notifications when new issues are released.

Contact [email protected] for more information.