Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity

At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants read definit...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: West, Matthew P. (Author)
Contributors: Miller, Monica K. ; Yelderman, Logan A.
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2018
In: Psychology, crime & law
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Keywords:
Aggravating and mitigating evidence
Attributional complexity
Juror decision-making
death penalty
gender differences
Description
Summary:At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants read definitions of aggravators and mitigators and rated the extent to which circumstances were aggravating or mitigating. In Study 2, a death qualified community sample read a trial summary, rated the extent to which aggravators and mitigators were present in the case, reported whether mitigators outweighed aggravators, and rendered a sentence. Results indicated that gender differences in mitigator endorsement were mediated by attributional complexity, and that gender differences in sentencing decisions were serially mediated by attributional complexity, mitigator endorsement, and aggravator and mitigator weighing.
ISSN:1477-2744
DOI:10.1080/1068316X.2018.1438432