Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

DOI 10.1007/s11211-014-0203-9

The Role of Emotion and Cognition in Juror

Perceptions of Victim Impact Statements

Amy L. Wevodau • Robert J. Cramer •

John W. Clark III • Andre Kehn

Published online: 22 February 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Recent legislation has contributed to an increasing number of victims

participating in the trial process by way of providing victim impact statements
(VISs). The present study evaluated jurors’ perceptions of VISs in a jury-eligible
sample. Participants were 402 jury-eligible community members in the south-
western United States. Using a vignette-based method, VIS presence and content
(i.e., Victim Harm versus Victim Emotion information) were examined for their
influence on sentencing decisions and blame attribution. Individual differences of
need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC) were featured as moderators of
these relations. Notable results included significantly lengthier sentencing recom-
mendations and decreased levels of victim blame in the presence of a VIS,
regardless of content. In addition, juror NFC was significantly positively associated
with perpetrator blame, while NFA moderated the relation between VIS content and

VISs and study materials can be obtained from the author.

A. L. Wevodau
R. J. Cramer (&)

Department of Psychology, Sam Houston State University, Campus Box 2447,
Huntsville, TX 77431, USA
e-mail: rjc021@shsu.edu
A. L. Wevodau
e-mail: alw032@shsu.edu

R. J. Cramer
Westlake Trial Consulting, Austin, TX, USA

J. W. Clark III
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd,
Tyler, TX, USA
e-mail: John_Clark@uttyler.edu

A. Kehn
Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, P.O. Box 8380, Grand Forks, ND, USA
e-mail: andre.kehn@und.edu

123
46 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

sentencing length. The presence of a VIS impacted blame and sentencing, although
jury panel member individual differences moderated such effects. Implications for
victim rights policy, trial consultation, and social–emotional theory are discussed.

Keywords Victim impact statement
Need for affect
Need for

cognition
Jury
Crime victims’ rights

In the American justice system, jurors are expected to be unbiased consumers of

information who logically and dispassionately weigh facts. An expectation of
impartiality is explicitly evident in standard voir dire judicial instructions requiring
potential jurists acknowledge and attest to monitoring personal biases (de Villiers,
2010). However, research has shown that the separation of emotion and reason in
the context of legal decision making may be an unobtainable ideal (Salerno &
Bottoms, 2009). Indeed, emergent jury research implicates juror emotion in
perceptions of, and decisions regarding, criminal defendants and witnesses alike
(e.g., Bornstein & Wiener, 2010).
Cases involving serious victim harm present one context in which juror
impartiality may be threatened. Although rates of some types of crimes have
decreased in recent years, the percentage of violent crimes resulting in victim injury
has risen (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Concurrently, victim participation in
the criminal justice process has also increased (Myers & Greene, 2004). One way
that victims may participate in proceedings is by providing a victim impact
statement (VIS). As it has been argued that that these statements are emotionally
inciting, VISs present an avenue through which the influence of juror emotion on
outcomes in criminal proceedings can be assessed.

Victim Impact Statements

Since the Victims’ Rights Movement in the 1970s (Crime Victims’ Rights Act,
2009), crime victims have been afforded the opportunity to share with the court
information regarding the pain, suffering, and loss experienced as a result of
victimization. VISs are typically presented during the sentencing phase of a trial to
assist in determination of sentencing parameters and may be written or orally
presented by the victim or a designee for the victim (Myers & Greene, 2004;
Szmania & Gracyalny, 2006). Although barred by the Supreme Court twice as
unconstitutional [see Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers
(1989)], the Court’s ruling in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) reinstated victims’ ability
to provide these testimonials. However, these cases focused on the use of VISs in
capital trials, and the Court has not yet grappled with the application of VISs in
noncapital proceedings. In recent years, VISs have become increasingly common,
particularly in noncapital proceedings (Lens, Pemberton & Bogaert, 2013), with as
many as 90 % of victims submitting statements (Kilpatrick et al., 1998, as cited in
Szmania & Gracyalny, 2006). At present, all 50 states and the federal government

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 47

have enacted legislation recognizing victims’ right to provide VISs (Cassell, 2009;
FED. R. CRIM. PROC. 32, 2011).
Although they have become somewhat commonplace, the value of VISs in the
criminal justice process is still hotly debated. Echoing the Payne majority,
proponents argue VISs provide cathartic and therapeutic benefits for victims and
contribute to improved proportionality of sentencing. Conversely, opponents argue
VISs are unduly prejudicial and result in excessively punitive and retaliatory
sentencing decisions based on emotional reactions (e.g., Greene, 1999; Myers &
Greene, 2004). As such, they argue VISs are a biasing extralegal influence which
should be excluded.
Whether VISs serve the intended effect as an aggravating factor in sentencing
and blame attribution is an important empirical question. To date, empirical
evidence is conflicted on this point. Although some research suggests VISs do not
influence jurors’ sentencing decisions (e.g., ForsterLee, Fox, ForsterLee, & Ho,
2004) or acceptance of aggravating and mitigating evidence in capital trials (e.g.,
Gordon & Brodsky, 2007), other research indicates that VISs may in fact influence
outcomes in certain situations. For example, research has shown that observers’
reactions to VISs may be influenced by factors such as personality attributes
(Greene, 1999) and linguistic characteristics of the statement (Hills & Thomson,
1999; Myers, Godwin, Latter & Winstanley, 2004). In addition, a recent review
implicates methodological issues as moderators of study outcomes, as field- and
laboratory-based studies produce consistently divergent outcome patterns (Salerno
& Bottoms, 2009). Findings such as these highlight the importance of considering
contextual factors in assessing the influence of VISs on legal decision making.
Regardless of the nature of the influencing effect, VISs are likely to be
functionally inert if they are not perceived as important by decision makers.
However, evidence suggests judges and jurors do in fact rely on VISs in arriving at
sentencing decisions (Gordon & Brodsky, 2007; Szmania & Gracyalny, 2006).
Given the frequency with which VISs are submitted and their potential impact on
sentencing outcomes, it is important to explore the possibility that, under certain
conditions, VISs may contribute to systematically dissimilar sentencing outcomes.
Specifically, in light of the dense literature arguing an emotionally driven biasing
effect of VISs, it is important to determine whether it is the degree of emotionality,
as opposed to harm information, conveyed through these statements that may
contribute to disparately punitive sentences. Moreover, individual differences
among fact finders may influence perception of VIS content; as research has yet to
investigate such a moderating explanation for inconsistent findings regarding the
influence of VISs.

Juror Emotion and Cognition

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Cacioppo, Petty & Stoltenberg, 1985)
provides one framework through which the influence of affective features of VISs,
as well as perceiver processing of VIS content, can be considered. The ELM posits
two simultaneous modes of information processing, central and peripheral routes,

123
48 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

which can be applied as aids to understanding how jurors process evidence.

Peripheral processing involves heuristic decision making via attention to surface
cues, whereas central route processing entails effortful, analytical processing.
Grounded in social-cognition and business literature, the need for cognition (NFC;
Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) is often used as a proxy for ELM constructs with low NFC
reflecting peripheral processing and high NFC representing central route processing.
More recent literature has hypothesized that the need for affect (NFA), or one’s
penchant for engaging with or avoiding emotional stimuli, is an individual
difference factor which also reflects ELM constructs, specifically peripheral route
processing (Maio & Esses, 2001).
Research has already demonstrated that both NFC and NFA influence jurors’
perceptions of and behavior during criminal proceedings. Mancini (2011) found that
NFC influences the likelihood of mock jurors noting evidentiary anomalies while
Shestowsky and Horowitz (2004) reported that NFC differentiated between mock
jurors who took active or passive roles in a deliberation exercise. NFC also appears
to influence the degree of scrutiny with which mock jurors evaluate evidence
(Leippe, Eisenstadt, Rauch & Seib, 2004), judgments regarding expert testimony
and scientific evidence (McAuliff & Kovera, 2008), preferences in testimony type
(e.g., anecdotal versus experimental; Bornstein, 2004), and the weight assigned to
ambiguous evidence (Kassin, Reddy & Tulloch, 1990). In light of the large body of
literature, experts in the field of trial consultation (e.g., Brodsky, 2009) often
highlight the broad applications and far-reaching implications of NFC in jury
selection.
In comparison with NFC, the body of research applying NFA in the legal context
is limited. However, the construct has gained increasing attention as accumulating
research demonstrates its implications in legal decision making. In one of the first
empirical studies to consider the influence of NFA on jury decision making, Corwin,
Cramer, Griffin and Brodsky (2012) manipulated a defendant’s level of verbal and
nonverbal remorse during the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Results
demonstrated a significant relationship between NFA, particularly the tendency to
approach emotions, and sentencing decisions. Specifically, jurors with high
approach tendencies were more likely to recommend a sentence of life without
parole rather than death. Authors suggested jurors’ willingness to approach
emotions led them to consider the emotional impact of their decision, which
contributed to fewer votes for death.
Alternatively, the potential influence of emotions on decision making in the
presence of a VIS may be explained by Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST;
Epstein, 1990). Like the ELM, CEST posits two separate but correlated modes of
information processing known as the rational and experiential systems (Kirkpatrick
& Epstein, 1992). The rational system, grounded in logic and adherence to rules, is
believed to function on a conscious level. Conversely, the experiential system
operates from a framework based on heuristics and intuitive mechanisms, including
emotions, and functions largely outside of conscious awareness. The experiential
system is also thought to preferentially attend to decisional outcomes, rather than
the processes underlying those outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Epstein, 1992). A majority
of research applying CEST to jury decision making to date has highlighted the

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 49

relatively heavier influence of experiential processing in this context (e.g., Krauss,

Lieberman, & Olson, 2004; Lieberman & Krauss, 2009; Lieberman, Krauss, Kyger
& Lehoux, 2007). Applied to the context of documented sentencing-enhancing
effects of VISs (e.g., ForsterLee et al., 2004; Myers & Arbuthnot, 1999; Salerno &
Bottoms, 2009), both CEST components potentiate conceptual understanding of
VIS processing. When perceiving the harmful content contained in VISs,
engagement of a rational system would suggest effortful processing of established
rules and laws (e.g., legal precedent to enhance sentence length where harmful VIS
content is present). Alternatively, reliance on experiential processing in the presence
of a VIS raises the potential for the perceiver to rely on heuristic cues such as the
strong emotional content contained in the VIS.

The Present Study

In spite of ongoing debate regarding the utility of and risks associated with VISs,
relatively little work has focused on evaluating the effects of VIS content on
sentencing outcomes. In an early effort to address this question, Myers et al., (2002)
examined the influence of differing levels of victim harm and witness affective
demeanor on mock jurors’ sentencing recommendations, reporting that harsher juror
judgments appeared to stem from exposure to the harm information, not from
witness’ emotional displays. Subsequently, Myers et al., (2004) evaluated the
effects of dehumanizing language on jurors’ sentencing recommendations. Results
indicated that while the addition of dehumanizing language did not appear to
influence jurors’ sentencing decisions overall, manipulations of VIS content
interacted with juror characteristics such that the influence of dehumanizing
language varied according to levels of individual difference factors, such as
attitudes toward the death penalty. These results highlight the potentially unique
importance of VIS content and individual difference factors in understanding the
influence of VISs on jurors’ sentencing outcomes. However, no study to date has yet
considered how factors such as NFC and NFA may influence decisional outcomes in
cases involving a VIS. Although not assessing ELM or CEST constructs directly,
the present study employs these theoretical frameworks to further our understanding
of the influences of central route/rational (NFC) and peripheral route/experiential
(NFA) modes of information processing on juror decision making within the context
of varied VIS content.
In light of these gaps in the research, the present study aimed to examine the
influence of VIS content and juror NFC and NFA on sentencing decisions and
blame attributions to clarify the influence of VISs on sentencing decisions in a
noncapital criminal trial. The decision to examine these effects in a noncapital case
was based on several factors. First, there are indications that VISs are becoming
increasingly frequent in noncapital cases (Lens et al., 2013), yet this context has
been largely neglected in the VIS literature. We are aware of only one recent study
which considered the effects of VISs in a noncapital setting (Szmania & Gracyalny,
2006). However, the authors did not examine the ramifications of VISs on

123
50 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

sentencing, and the crimes at issue were murders, rendering the examined
statements similar to those which might be encountered in a capital case. Second,
some have commented that victims providing statements in noncapital cases are
afforded leeway with regard to the content of their statements which is not allowed
in capital cases. Therefore, examination of VIS effects in a noncapital case would
allow for a more thorough understanding of the potential influence of these
statements in a less-restrictive context. By manipulating the focus of VIS content
(Victim Emotion versus Victim Harm), the current study aimed to test the
assumption of VIS opponents that it is the emotional valence of these statements
which contributes to more punitive sentences.
This study adds to the current body of empirical literature examining the
influence of VISs by evaluating the interactive effects of VIS content and juror
characteristics on sentencing outcomes and blame attribution. Unlike previous
studies examining VIS content manipulations (e.g., Myers et al., 2002, 2004), the
present study took a holistic approach to evaluating broad types of content
differences, rather than manipulating levels of harm. This study attempted to control
for the limitations cited in previous studies (e.g., Myers & Arbuthnot, 1999) where
it was hypothesized that the emotional style in which statements were delivered may
have resulted in witness’ emotional demeanor influencing sentencing recommen-
dations to an equal or greater extent than VIS content. In addition, this study
expands our understanding of the influence of VISs by examining them in the
context of a less-severe criminal act, thereby allowing for examination of the
influence of VISs across a broader range of crime severity. Finally, this study
expands the current body of literature by examining the influence of VISs in a
representative pool of potential jurors, rather than a college student sample.
It was hypothesized that: (1) compared with a no VIS control group, the presence
of a VIS would yield increased punitiveness toward the perpetrator, evidenced by
harsher sentences, higher levels of perpetrator blame and lower levels of victim
blame across VIS conditions; (2) VIS content would influence sentencing decisions,
with jurors exposed to the Victim Emotion statement rendering harsher sentences,
higher levels of perpetrator blame, and lower levels of victim blame, than those
exposed to the Victim Harm statement; and (3) juror NFC and NFA would moderate
the impact of VISs in manners consistent with the ELM and CEST. Specifically,
jurors higher (versus lower) in NFC will be more responsive to the Victim Harm
condition, as indicated by harsher sentencing decisions, while jurors higher (versus
lower) in NFA will be more responsive to the Victim Emotion condition, as
indicated by harsher sentencing decisions.

Method

Participants

Four-hundred-two jury panel members from a large urban district in the

southwestern United States participated in this study (168 males, 229 females,

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 51

and 5 missing; M age = 45.76 years, SD = 13.17). Participants were primarily

White Non-Hispanic (n = 273), with smaller proportions identifying as African
American (n = 60), Hispanic (n = 48), Asian American (n = 11), Biracial/Other
(n = 7), and missing (n = 3). Participants were divided nearly evenly among
conditions with 137 in the control condition and 132 and 133 in the experimental
conditions. Highest level of educational attainment was reported as follows: Less
than high school (n = 3), high school (n = 40), some college (n = 118), college
degree (n = 169), master’s degree (n = 55), doctoral degree (n = 16), and missing
(n = 1). The mean level of political orientation measured on a 10-point scale
indicated a slightly conservative sample (M = 6.07, SD = 2.26).

Procedures

Data collection occurred during a sequence of juror orientation sessions in a large

urban courtroom as part of a larger study on juror perceptions. Upon arrival, all
summoned jury-eligible community members were offered the opportunity to
participate in a voluntary survey on legal attitudes. All participants underwent
standard informed consent procedures and were randomly assigned to condition.

Materials

Case Vignette

All participants received identical vignettes describing the criminal trial of a male
perpetrator convicted of sexually assaulting a female acquaintance. Vignettes
included a brief description of the offense, background information on the offender,
and a summary of psychological testimony outlining the results of a violence risk
assessment, including a limited summary of psychological testing data indicating
that the defendant presented a low-to-moderate risk for sexual re-offense. Risk and
mitigating factors (described as the absence of a risk factor) were presented. Factors
identified as such were based on the results of a recent meta-analysis of risk factors
for recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Information on several factors
identified therein as unrelated to recidivism risk were included to increase external
validity, as such factors are frequently discussed by experts testifying in similar
contexts (Wevodau, 2010). Finally, participants were provided with the statutory
definition of sexual assault and related recommended sentencing range as codified in
Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated (§12.33; 22.011, 2009a, b; i.e., 2–20 years of
incarceration). While departures from this recommendation may occur, jurors were
asked to assign a sentence within these parameters.
The races of neither victim nor offender were provided to avoid potential biasing
effects. The description of the offense, offender’s background, and psychological
testimony were adapted from archival records to increase external validity. Offense
details were limited to the greatest extent possible to information regarding sexual
violence only. In spite of research indicating the predictive utility of the construct

123
52 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

(e.g., Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), labels such as ‘‘psychopath’’ were

excluded as they may unduly influence jurors (Lieberman & Krauss, 2009).

Script Manipulation: Victim Impact Statement

As the primary manipulation, participants in the experimental conditions also

reviewed one of two VISs to allow for evaluation of the influence of VIS presence
and content. The focus of the statements varied such that one expounded upon the
emotional and psychological impact of the attack on the victim (Victim Emotion
condition), while the other focused on financial costs and logistic difficulties
encountered by the victim following the attack (Victim Harm condition). The
Victim Emotion statement was crafted to be emotionally salient and included
many emotionally laden words. The Victim Harm statement was crafted to
exclude, to the greatest extent possible, emotional language.
This content distinction was based on several factors. First, VIS opponents
argue that it is specifically the emotional saliency of VISs which contributes to
differential sentencing outcomes observed in some studies (e.g., Myers & Greene,
2004). Second, many states request that victims address the severity of physical,
emotional, and psychological injuries in their statements, making all three content
types likely to appear in this context. Third, previous studies examining the
influence of VIS content (e.g., Myers & Arbuthnot, 1999) suggests that victim
harm information and victim emotionality may have independent effects on jurors’
sentencing decisions. Fourth, VIS forms employed by the Victim Services
Division of the state in which the study was conducted instruct victims to report
psychological injury, physical injury, and economic burdens as discrete losses
(Texas Department of Criminal Justice, n.d.). These forms, as well as VIS
excerpts in Szmania and Gracyalny (2006), were used in developing the VIS
content for the present study. To assist in describing psychological harm, the
aforementioned forms provide a checklist which closely resembles diagnostic
criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. In detailing physical injuries, victims
are directed to describe the extent and chronicity of their injuries. Finally, forms
provide a list of expense categories (i.e., medical bills, property losses, etc.), and
victims are asked to indicate accrued and expected costs incurred as a result of the
crime. The latter sections were collapsed in creating the Victim Harm statement.
As an objective check on the content manipulation, both VISs were exposed to
word content analysis software (LIWC; Pennebaker, Booth & Francis, 2007) which
provides a percentage of words from a given text that fit specified criteria. Use of
such software is consistent with previous literature (e.g., Hatz & Bourgeois, 2010).
For the present study, we evaluated the percentage of both affectively charged and
negatively emotionally salient wording in both VISs, expecting the Victim Emotion
condition to be higher on both indicators. Results supported successful emotion
manipulation in that the Victim Emotion statement contained 9.15 % affective
words overall, as well as 7.72 % negative emotion wording, while the Victim Harm
statement contained only 5.29 % affective words overall and 3.91 % negative

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 53

emotion wording. Therefore, the intended emotional content manipulation was

considered successful.

Measures

Demographics

Participants completed a demographic questionnaire including age, gender, race,

educational attainment, and political orientation. Political orientation was measured
on a 10-point Likert scale with higher values reflecting more conservative views.

Sentencing Decision

Participants were asked to render a sentence within statutorily recommended

sentencing parameters. While jurors most typically render sentences only in capital
cases, the practice of juror sentencing for noncapital offenses (such as sexual
assault) is consistent with state criminal code in the state in which the study was
conducted, as well as several other states across the U.S. (e.g., ARK. CODE ANN. §§
5-4-103, 16-90-107, 2012; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §532.055(2), 2012; MO. ANN. STAT.
§557.036, 2012; OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 22, §§926-928, 2012; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 37.07, 2012; VA. CODE. ANN. §19.2-295, 2012). Participants in the
experimental conditions also indicated, on a five-point Likert scale, the degree of
emotionality and the relative importance of the victim’s statement in forming their
sentencing recommendation. These items were included as manipulation checks; the
first to ensure participants perceived the victim as injured and the second to ensure
VIS content was interpreted differentially according to the intended foci.

Need for Affect Scale

NFA includes one’s motivation to approach and avoid emotions. Those with a high
NFA typically view emotions as important, seek out emotionally evocative
experiences and strive to understand their own and others’ emotions (Maio & Esses,
2001). The 26-item NFA Scale contains two negatively correlated subscales;
Approach and Avoidance; which contribute to a total NFA score. Items are rated
using a seven-point scale with extremes reflecting strong agreement or disagree-
ment. Total and NFA subscale scores have demonstrated strong internal consistency
(a = .83–.87; Maio & Esses, 2001). Cronbach’s a for NFA total scores in this
sample was .74 (note: subscale scores were not used in the present study).

Need for Cognition Scale

NFC describes the degree to which one engages in or enjoys effortful cognitive
activity (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Participants’ NFC was assessed using the
18-item version of the Need for Cognition Scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty and
Kao (1984). Participants respond using a five-point scale indicating the degree to
which item content is characteristic of their typical behavior. Higher scores indicate

123
54 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

increased NFC. The 18-item version has demonstrated strong internal consistency
(a = .90; Cacioppo et al., 1984). Cronbach’s a in this sample was .86.

Perception of Victim/Perpetrator Blame Scale

Developed by Rayburn, Mendoza and Davison (2003), these scales assess the level
of blame respondents assign to victims and perpetrators. Respondents provide
impressions of the victim and perpetrator separately, using a seven-point scale with
antithetical adjectives serving as anchors (e.g., violent/nonviolent). The scales are
completely identical with the exception of the target of respondents’ ratings. High
scores represent more blameworthiness toward the target. Internal consistency of the
Victim and Perpetrator Scales is strong (.90 and .85, respectively; Rayburn et al.,
2003). Cronbach’s a in this sample were .79 for perpetrator blame and .87 for victim
blame.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Prior to analyses, manipulation checks were conducted to determine (a) if

participants perceived a greater emotional valence in the Victim Emotion condition
compared to the Victim Harm condition, and (b) equivalent reliance upon victim
testimony, where it was present. Further analysis examined what, if any, impact
juror NFA and NFC had on perceived emotional valence of testimony. Therefore,
only participants in experimental conditions received manipulation check items.
To determine if affective language differences in emotional content between
VISs were large enough to be recognized by jurors, participants in experimental
conditions were asked to rate on a five-point scale (with higher values reflecting
greater emotional valence) the following question: ‘‘To what extent do you believe
the victim focused on her emotional reaction and suffering related to the crime in
her testimony?’’ Results of an independent samples t test showed that participants in
the Victim Emotion condition (M = 4.64, SD = 0.62) perceived greater emotional
valence than in the Victim Harm condition (M = 3.42, SD = 1.21), t(263) =
-10.35, p \ .001, Cohen’s d = 1.27).
Another independent sample t test was conducted to evaluate equitable reliance
on testimony between VIS types. Participants were asked to rate the following on a
five-point Likert scale (with higher scores denoting greater reliance): ‘‘To what
extent did you rely upon information in the victim’s testimony in arriving at your
sentencing decision?’’ Results showed nonsignificant disparities in reliance on
testimony between participants who viewed the Victim Emotion (M = 3.60,
SD = 1.02) and Victim Harm statements (M = 3.43, SD = 1.14), t(263) = -1.33,
p = .18. This suggests equivalent reliance on testimony across VIS conditions.
Linear regression was employed to examine whether total juror NFA or NFC
displayed significant influences on perceived emotional valence of a VIS. Although
the overall model was nonsignificant, F(2, 253) = 2.07, p = .13, a significant effect

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 55

was observed for NFA (b = -.13, p = .05), but not NFC (b = -.03, p = .70).
Therefore, across VIS conditions, greater NFA was associated with lesser perceived
emotionality of the testimony.

VIS Condition, Need for Cognition and Need for Affect as Influences on Blame
and Sentencing Recommendation

Prior to analyses, a correlation matrix was run using demographic, predictor, and
criterion variables. Any demographic variables significantly correlated with
outcomes of interest (i.e., blame and sentencing) were included as control variables
in the full model. Table 1 contains the correlation matrix. Gender and political
orientation were the only demographic variables displaying significant correlations
with any criterion measures.
As articulated by DeCoster (2007), Multivariate General Linear Model (mGLM)
was employed for analyses to allow for simultaneous inclusion of categorical and
continuous predictor variables. Dependent measures were sentencing recommen-
dation (in years), victim blame and perpetrator blame. Predictor variables were
gender (coded male/female), political orientation, VIS condition (coded control,
Victim Harm, Victim Emotion), NFC, total NFA, VIS condition 9 NFC interac-
tion, and VIS condition 9 NFA interaction. All continuous predictor variables were
centered prior to analyses. Only participants with complete data on all measures of
interest were included (n = 343).
Significant multivariate tests emerged for the following predictor terms,
indicating significant effects on the overall collection of criterion measures: Gender
(Wilks’ k = .97, F(3, 330) = 3.31, p = .02, g2 = .02). political orientation (Wilks’
k = .96, F(3, 330) = 4.04, p = .008, g2 = .03), VIS condition (Wilks’ k = .87,
F(6, 660) = 7.46, p \ .001, g2 = .06), NFC (Wilks’ k = .96, F(3, 330) = 4.43,
p = .005, g2 = .04), and the VIS condition 9 NFA interaction (Wilks’ k = .95,
F(6, 660) = 2.67, p = .01, g2 = .04). Consistent with multivariate approaches
(Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003), the only univariate effects interpreted below
are for those predictor terms displaying significant multivariate effects.
Table 2 contains summary statistics for univariate effects. Effects sizes are
reported only for significant univariate tests. Concerning sentencing recommenda-
tions, VIS condition, the VIS condition 9 NFA interaction, and political orientation
displayed significant effects. LSD post hoc comparisons of sentencing recommen-
dation by VIS condition show that the presence of either a Victim Emotion
(M = 13.69, SD = 5.61, p \ .001, Cohen’s d = .61) or Victim Harm statement
(M = 12.79, SD = 6.29, p \ .001, Cohen’s d = .46) significantly increased the
sentence length compared with the control condition (M = 9.91, SD = 6.08).
However, there were no significant differences in the sentence length between VIS
conditions (p = .25). The significant main effect of VIS condition on sentencing
recommendation was also moderated by participants’ NFA such that those with low
NFA assigned greater sentences when there was no VIS compared with their high
NFA counterparts. However, this pattern reversed when either VIS was present:
high NFA individuals recommended lengthier prison sentences compared with their
low NFA counterparts. Sentence length disparity was greater for the Victim Harm

123
 56

123
Table 1 Correlation matrix of demographic, predictor and criterion measures
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Sentence – -.14** .25*** -.01 -.05 -.07 .13** .05 -.03 .02
2. VicBlame – -.39*** .04 .01 -.03 -.05 .06 -.02 -.06
3. – -.03 .09* -.07 .05 .06 .16** .09
PerpBlame
4. Age – -.07 -.15*** .23*** -.01 -.01 -.02
5. Gendera – .08 .07 -.03 -.06 .22***
6. Racea – -.14*** -.17*** -.14*** .01
7. PolOr – -.09 -.03
8. Educationa – .29*** .02
9. NFC – .07
10. NFA –
a
Categorical variable/Kendall’s Tau; VicBlame victim blame total score, PerpBlame perpetrator blame total score, PolOr political orientation (higher score reflect conservative
views), NFC need for cognition total score, NFA need for affect total score; * p B .05, ** p B .01, *** p B .001
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 57

Table 2 Univariate tests for predictor terms on sentencing recommendation, victim blame, and perpe-
trator blame
Predictor Sentencing recommendation Victim blame Perpetrator blame

F p g2 F p g2 F p g2

Gender .51 .48 – .22 .64 – 5.85 .02 .02

PolOr 9.74 .002 .03 1.32 .25 – 5.41 .02 .02
Condition 12.72 <.001 .07 6.13 .002 .04 1.50 .22 –
NFC .17 .68 – .01 .93 – 10.23 .002 .03
Condition 9 NFC .31 .73 – 1.94 .14 – 1.92 .15 –
NFA .04 .84 – .49 .48 – 1.93 .16 –
Condition 9 NFA 4.02 .02 .02 1.72 .18 – 1.24 .29 –

F F-statistic, p p value, PolOr political orientation, Condition VIS condition, NFC need for cognition,
Cond 9 NFC VIS condition by need for cognition interaction, NFA NFA, Cond 9 NFA VIS condition by
need for affect interaction; Bold significant predictor

group than for the Victim Emotion group. Also noteworthy is that larger NFA group
differences were observed for the Harm, as opposed to the Emotion, condition.
Observing the overall pattern, it appears that high NFA participants were the most
responsive to the addition of any VIS. Results demonstrate a positive relation
between political orientation and sentencing (b = .96), suggesting that sentencing
recommendations increase as participants endorse increasingly conservative polit-
ical views.
The pattern of victim blame by VIS condition was the same as that observed for
sentencing recommendations. LSD post hoc comparisons of victim blame by VIS
condition show that the presence of either a Victim Emotion (M = 36.55,
SD = 11.94, p = .002, Cohen’s d = -.41) or Victim Harm statement
(M = 36.79, SD = 12.72, p = .003, Cohen’s d = -.38) significantly decreased
victim blame compared with the control condition (M = 41.78, SD = 13.24).
However, there were no significant differences in victim blame between statements
(p = .88).
Only gender, political orientation, and NFC displayed significant relations with
perpetrator blame, suggesting that VIS-related information did not influence
perceptions of the perpetrator. LSD post hoc comparisons suggest females blamed
the perpetrator significantly more (M = 81.08, SD = 9.89, p = .02, Cohen’s
d = .24) than male participants (M = 78.53, SD = 10.95). Political orientation
displayed a significant positive relation with perpetrator blame (b = 1.17), whereby
perpetrator blame increased with more conservative political views. NFC also
displayed a significant positive association with perpetrator blame (b = 1.17),
whereby greater motivated, effortful cognitive processing was related to higher
perpetrator blame.

Hypothesis Summary

The first hypothesis suggested that, compared with a no VIS control group, the
presence of a VIS would yield increased punitiveness toward the perpetrator. This

123
58 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

hypothesis was supported in that both VIS conditions yielded lengthier sentencing
recommendations than the control condition. While no effect was found on
perpetrator blame, the presence of either VIS also decreased perceptions of victim
blame, indicating that the addition of a VIS favored the victim. Hypothesis two
suggested that VIS content would influence sentencing recommendation and blame,
with jurors exposed to the Victim Emotion statement rendering harsher sentences
and perpetrator blame, as well as decreased victim blame, than those exposed to the
Victim Harm statement. This hypothesis went unsupported, as no differences
between VIS types emerged at the main effect level. The third hypothesis that juror
NFC and NFA would moderate the impact of VISs was partially supported. NFA,
but not NFC, moderated the influence of VIS condition on sentencing recommen-
dations. Results are discussed below.

Discussion

Overall, the presence of a VIS resulted in recommendation for lengthier sentences

and decreased victim blame by jurors in a sexual assault trial situation. However, it
appears it was the mere presence of a VIS, rather than its content, which contributed
to these effects. Participants exposed to Victim Emotion and Victim Harm
statements rendered similar sentences and assigned comparable levels of blame to
the victim. No impact of VIS condition was observed on perpetrator blame.
However, individual difference factors, including gender, political orientation and
NFC, were influential in this regard. Finally, jurors’ NFA arose as an important
individual difference factor, influencing sentencing recommendations in the
presence of a VIS.
Results from the present study suggest that the inclusion of a VIS in the
sentencing phase of a criminal sexual assault trial is likely to contribute to lengthier
sentencing recommendations by jurors. The condition to which participants were
assigned (i.e., control, Victim Emotion, or Victim Harm) accounted for more
variance in sentencing outcomes and victim blame than any other single predictor
analyzed in the current study. This finding is practically important insofar as it could
translate into additional years of imprisonment for offenders convicted of sexual
assault. It is also noteworthy that this pattern mirrors that seen in much of the
research examining VISs and capital sentencing; namely that VIS exposure results
in more punitive sentencing outcomes (e.g., Luginbuhl & Burkhead, 1995;
McGowan & Myers, 2004; Myers & Arbuthnot, 1999; Paternoster & Deise,
2011). However, the present study is unique in finding such a pattern in a sample of
community jury-eligible participants, as many field-based studies have found no
influence of VISs on sentencing outcomes (Salerno & Bottoms, 2009).
While consistent with some research examining VISs in capital cases, the pattern
of increasingly punitive sentencing recommendations in the presence of a VIS
observed here is at odds with findings reported by other VIS researchers (e.g.,
ForsterLee et al., 2004; Gordon & Brodsky, 2007). It is possible such discrepancies
are the result of methodological differences. For example, Gordon and Brodsky
(2007) employed an undergraduate mock jury sample and both research teams

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 59

examined the influence of a VIS in the context of a murder trial. In and of

themselves, these differences in study design might account for the observed
discrepancies. Furthermore, using a noncapital, nonmurder crime as the focus of the
VIS may have contributed to divergent results. Whereas in a capital case, the VIS
would be delivered by someone other than the victim, a noncapital context allowed
for the victim to address the court directly. It is possible that in arriving at a
sentencing recommendation jurors differentially weight emotional and financial
harm when information pertaining to these losses is conveyed by the victim rather
than a proxy. It is likely that the identity of the person delivering the information
influences both jurors’ perceptions of harm and their emotional reactions to the
information in differing ways. It is also possible that by manipulating VIS content
and considering the interactive effects of a unique set of individual difference
factors on legal decision making in the presence of a VIS, the present study
represents a more nuanced understanding of the influence of VISs on jurors’
sentencing recommendations.
Findings regarding differential patterns of blame attribution in the presence of a
VIS are also notable given that this issue has received relatively little empirical
attention to date. Of particular interest is the finding that the presence of a VIS
decreased victim blame but had no effect on perpetrator blame. In the presence of a
VIS, jurors may find it difficult to assign responsibility for the crime to the victim.
This may be less the case in trials where there is no victim participation.
Interestingly, the lack of relationship between VIS condition and perpetrator blame
observed here is at odds with previous studies indicating that jurors’ perceptions of
victim harm influenced decisions regarding defendants’ blameworthiness
(e.g., Myers & Greene, 2004). Rather, results from the present study indicate that
the inclusion of a VIS is more likely to influence jurors’ direct ratings of victim, but
not perpetrator, blame.
Results of the current study also suggest that NFA is an important individual
difference factor which influences jurors’ reactions to VISs. In the absence of a VIS,
jurors low in NFA recommended harsher sentences than those high in NFA. With
the addition of a VIS, sentencing recommendations of jurors high in NFA were most
punitive. This suggests that although the presence of a VIS increased sentencing
recommendations overall, jurors high in NFA were the most responsive to the
addition of victim input. Juror responsivity to VIS content was especially
pronounced in the Victim Harm condition (see Fig. 1). From an ELM perspective
(Cacioppo et al., 1985), this pattern of results is unexpected, as the ELM would
postulate that jurors high in NFA should be the most responsive to the Victim
Emotion statement. In the present sample, all jurors, regardless of NFA level,
appeared responsive to the Victim Emotion statement. However, jurors high in NFA
evidenced a notably elevated reaction to the Victim Harm statement, increasing
sentencing recommendations to a greater degree than jurors low in NFA presented
with the same statement. Although high NFA is hypothesized to be an indicator of
peripheral route processing and a tendency to rely on incidental cues, such as
emotional appeals and perceiver emotional reactions (Cacioppo et al., 1985), the
results of this study indicate that victim harm information was more closely related

123
60 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

Years in prison
16

14

12

10

8 Low NFA
High NFA
6

0
No VIS Victim Harm Statement Emotion Statement

Fig. 1 VIS condition by need for affect interaction predicting sentencing recommendation (in years). VIS
Victim impact statement, NFA need for affect; Low/high NFA values reflect scores -/? 1 standard
deviation above the mean

to increasingly punitive sentencing recommendations in the subsample of jurors

high in NFA.
If one accepts that exposure to affective information by way of exposure to either
VIS promoted experiential processing, then results appear more consistent with a
CEST framework. In this sample, it was the VIS itself, rather than the information
contained therein, that served as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The fact that
VIS presence, as opposed to the content of the statement, contributed to more
punitive sentencing recommendations offers potential support to the heuristically
and outcome-driven decision making employed in experiential processing. That is,
the mere presence of the VIS (i.e., a heuristic) impacted sentencing outcomes in that
the perceiver raised sentences (i.e., the outcome) because a VIS was present, and not
because of the case-specific content of the VIS. CEST-based explanations of the
VIS content do warrant further empirical inquiry.
Other explanations of NFA findings exist, the first of which lies in the extent to
which jurors perceived the victim to be harmed by the offender’s actions. Myers,
Lynn, and Arbuthnot (2002) suggested that judgments of blame are often based on
perceptions of the extent of victim harm and VISs contribute to harsher sentences
only when victim harm is perceived as greater than expected. Similarly, Hills and
Thomson (1999) reported that jurors’ impressions of victims’ coping, ascertained
through VISs, influenced sentencing recommendations in the expected directions.
Jurors with high NFA can be expected to incorporate and rely heavily on emotional
information in arriving at sentencing decisions (Corwin et al. 2012). Therefore, it is
possible that high NFA jurors may have expected anger and fear to play prominent

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 61

roles in a VIS, as they did in the Victim Emotion statement in the present study.
However, the extent of victim damage conveyed in the Victim Harm statement may
have been more unexpected given the less overtly emotional nature of the statement
content, and possibly perceived as uniquely challenging to cope with. Therefore, as
the harm described in the latter was potentially less expected, it may have been
perceived as more severe and activated greater negative reactions in high NFA
jurors, yielding harsher sentencing. Alternatively, it is possible that the Victim
Emotion VIS was perceived as more vengeful, as the victim expresses an overt
desire for harm to befall her attacker which are absent in the Victim Harm
statement. This difference may have influenced jurors’ perceptions of the likability
of the victim, which in turn may have contributed to the pattern of outcomes
depicted in Fig. 1, as perceptions of victim likability have been shown to influence
juror decision making in the presence of a VIS (Greene, Koehring & Quiat, 1998).
Yet another possible explanation of the present results lies in the extent to which
jurors experienced empathy for the victim after exposure to a VIS. It is plausible
that, in addition to encouraging engagement with emotions more broadly, exposure
to an affectively charged VIS promoted increased identification with and empathy
for the victim in this case. One recent theory describing the influence of empathy
and punitiveness toward offenders in legal decision making suggests that (1)
empathy is a key determinant of punitive attitudes, (2) empathy involves the
capacity to identify with a specific offender, and (3) those who are more empathetic
toward offenders tend to be more lenient and are less compelled to retaliate in
sentencing (Unnever & Cullen, 2009). Furthermore, empathy-promoting offender-
related information serves as mitigation in sentencing. In fact, evidence supporting
the idea that affect, identification with the victim, and inherent theories of
punishment are related, perhaps uniquely, to sentencing decisions dates back more
than 30 years (e.g., McFatter, 1978). Applying a similar line of reasoning here, it is
possible that jurors’ characteristic levels of NFA influenced the extent to which
empathy-promoting victim-related information presented in the VISs served to
establish identification with the victim and promote a desire to retaliate against the
offender by way of a more punitive sentencing recommendation. The development
of victim identification and empathy may also serve to explain the decreased levels
of victim blame observed in the VIS conditions. Future research should further
evaluate the interaction of NFA and empathy development on legal decision making
to clarify this issue.
In addition to the primary findings noted above, several demographic and
individual difference-related findings warrant comment. First, gender was signif-
icantly predictive of perpetrator blame, with females assigning more blame than
males. This may stem from gender differences in rape myth acceptance, as an extant
literature documents that rape myth acceptance is more common among men (e.g.,
Johnson, Kuck & Schander, 1997) and the degree to which one accepts rape myths
can influence the amount of blame assigned to both victims and perpetrators of
sexual assault (Hammond, Berry & Rodriguez, 2011). A conservative political
orientation was also related to increased sentence length and perpetrator blame. The
former finding is consistent with research documenting a trend toward more severe
criminal sentences in politically conservative jurisdictions (Pardoe & Weidner,

123
62 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

2006). The latter finding expands the body of knowledge regarding the impact of
political conservatism by demonstrating that more highly conservative jurors are
also more likely to assign blame to both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault.
Also consistent with previous literature was the finding that jurors’ NFC was not
significantly predictive of sentencing decisions (Mancini, 2011; McAuliff &
Kovera, 2008). Consistent with previous literature on physical assaults (Clark,
Cramer, Percosky, Rufino, Miller, & Johnson, 2013), higher levels of NFC were
associated with higher levels of perpetrator blame. This combination indicates that
while jurors high in NFC were more likely to perceive the offender as culpable, this
did not translate into recommendations for lengthier sentences.

Implications, Conclusions, and Future Directions

Results present several policy and practice implications. First, results lend support
to the arguments of VIS opponents insofar as suggesting that, under certain
circumstances, VISs may be related to increasingly punitive sentencing recom-
mendations. However, results do not support the argument that it is the emotional
saliency of VISs that is driving this effect. Rather, it appears it is the participation of
the victim, rather than VIS content, which contributes to more punitive outcomes.
As recent legislation, including the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, has served to
promote victim participation in the criminal justice process, the present findings beg
the question: does such legislation infringe upon defendants’ rights to a fair and
impartial trial? Although research is currently far from conclusive on this point, the
present results suggest that those offenders whose victims participate in the trial
process may receive harsher sentences than offenders whose victims do not
participate. Although the present study identified this pattern in a juror sample, there
is reason to believe findings may extend to judicial sentencing practices, as research
indicates judges may be subject to the same cognitive biases observed in lay persons
(Guthrie, Rachlinski & Wistrich, 2001).
The present results also suggest the potential utility of VISs in the trial process.
An increasing number of social scientists are becoming involved with the legal
process in the capacity of trial consultants. Results such as presented here stand to
inform those acting in this role by highlighting the importance of VISs and related
implications for case conceptualization, jury selection research and practices,
witness selection and preparation, and other aspects of case presentation. For
example, the results presented in this study indicate the significance of sociode-
mographic features such as political orientation in the context of jury selection in a
sexual assault case. Jury selection in such trials may also address consideration of
juror NFC and NFA, as they may impact judgments of offender culpability and
sentencing recommendations.
The results described above are subject to several limitations. First, although it
has been argued that the mock jury paradigm is inherently limited (e.g., MacCoun,
1989), this methodology allows for greater experimental control than could be
afforded in other settings. Similarly, jurors rendered sentencing recommendations
without deliberation. As evidence suggests that deliberation can influence sentenc-
ing recommendations (Lynch & Haney, 2009), future studies may benefit from

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 63

including a deliberation component. Second, although this study adds to the body of
literature by examining VISs in a noncapital trial, this context complicates
somewhat the application of findings reported here to the VIS literature at-large
which focuses principally on capital cases. However, the present study allowed for
examination of the influences of VISs and VIS content at a lower level of crime
severity and was not intended to address to juror sentencing in capital cases. Future
research may evaluate NFA and VISs in the context of other noncapital crimes to
determine whether similar patterns of influence on sentencing exist. Third, the
current study did not include an experimental mood induction. Although partici-
pants were asked to rate their emotions before and after reading study materials, we
cannot infer that the VIS was either directly or solely responsible for any changes
observed in these pre- and post-reports. Future studies should include an
experimental mood induction, and may also benefit from examining potential
differences associated with similarly valenced emotions likely to be evoked by a
VIS, such as anger and sadness. Finally, the VIS content manipulation used in the
current study, while intended to enhance the external validity of the statement, may
have also introduced a confounding factor which could have influenced results. Not
only was the type of victim harm varied, but the language and emotional valence of
the statements varied as well. Although ELM, CEST, and empathy theory-based
explanations were offered, none of them was formally tested. The literature would
benefit from future studies which (a) aim to reduce the influence (if any) of this
confound, and (b) offer qualitative responses from jurors to evaluate their
processing of VIS information and reasoning for sentencing decisions. Refined
experimental manipulations and qualitative participant responses could allow for
direct tests of ELM, CEST, and empathy-based explanations posited in the present
study.

References

Arkansas Code Annotated §5-4-103, §16-90-107 (2012).

Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 486 (1987).
Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’
liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 429–446. doi:10.1080/1068316030001629292.
Bornstein, B. H., & Wiener, R. L. (2010). Emotion and the law: A field whose time has come. In B.
H. Bornstein & R. L. Wiener (Eds.), Emotion and the law: Psychological perspectives (pp. 1–12).
New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Principles and practice of trial consultation. New York: Guilford Press.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1985). Processes of social influence: The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. In P. C. Kendall & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Advances in cognitive-
behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 4, pp. 215–274). San Diego: Academic Press.
Cassell, P. G. (2009). In defense of victim impact statements. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(2),
611–648.

123
64 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

Clark, J. W., Cramer, R. J., Percosky, A., Rufino, K. A., Miller, R. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Juror
perceptions of African-American and Arabic named victims. Psychology, Psychiatry, and Law, 20,
781–794.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Corwin, E. F., Cramer, R. J., Griffin, D. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Defendant remorse, need for affect
and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 40(1),
41–49.
Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. §3771 (2009).
de Villiers, M. (2010). The impartiality doctrine: Constitutional meaning and judicial impact. American
Journal of Trial Advocacy, 34(1), 71–103.
DeCoster, J. (2007). Applied linear regression notes set 1. Retrieved from http://www.stathelp.com/notes.
html.
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory
and research (pp. 165–192). New York: Guilford Press.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32 (2011).
ForsterLee, L., Fox, G. B., ForsterLee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and
gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime?
Australian Psychologist, 39, 57–67. doi:10.1080/00050060410001660353.
Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of victim impact statements on sentencing in
capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 45–52. doi:10.1300/J158v07n02-03.
Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments.
Psychology: Crime & Law, 5, 331–348. doi:10.1080/10683169908401776.
Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s
character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145–156. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.
1998.tb01697.x.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review,
86(4), 777–830.
Hammond, E. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriguez, D. N. (2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance,
sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242–252. doi:10.1348/135532510X499887.
Hanson, R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-
analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154.
Hatz, J. L., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2010). Anger as a cue to truthfulness. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 680–683. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.009.
Hills, A. M., & Thomson, D. M. (1999). Should victim impact influence sentences? Understanding the
community’s justice reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 661–671. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0798(199923)17:5\661::AID-BSL369[3.0.CO;2-N.
Johnson, B. E., Kuck, D. L., & Schander, P. R. (1997). Rape myth acceptance and sociodemographic
characteristics: A multidimensional analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 693–707. doi:10.1023/A:
1025671021697.
Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The
need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43–55. doi:10.
1007/BF01055788.
Kentucky Revised Statute Annotated §532.055(2), (2012).
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability:
Further evidence of two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
534–544. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.534.
Krauss, D. A., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information
processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22,
801–822. doi:10.1002/bsl.621.
Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert
testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 524–541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.524.
Lens, K. E., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2013). Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new
perspective on delivering a victim impact statement. European Journal of Criminology, 10,
479–495. doi:10.1177/1477370812469859.

123
Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66 65

Lieberman, J. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2009). The effects of labeling, expert testimony, and information
processing mode on juror decisions in SVP civil commitment trials. Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6, 25–41. doi:10.1002/jip.91.
Lieberman, J. D., Krauss, D. A., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in
sexually violent predator violations: Cognitive experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert
testimony. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 507–526. doi:10.1002/bsl.771.
Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for
death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1–16. doi:10.1007/BF02886115.
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension,
and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 481–496. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2.
MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244(4908), 1046–1054.
Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to
approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 583–615.
Mancini, D. E. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: Is it moderated by need for cognition? North
American Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 155–174.
McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in
expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385–408.
McFatter, R. M. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on
sentencing decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1490–1500. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.36.12.1490.
McGowan, M., & Myers, B. (2004). Who is the victim anyway? The effects of bystander victim impact
statements on mock juror sentencing decisions. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 357–374.
Missouri Annotated Statue §557.036 (2012).
Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing
judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95–112. doi:10.1300/
J076v29n03_05.
Myers, B., Godwin, D., Latter, R., & Winstanley, S. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror
sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 22(2), 39–55.
Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for
capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492–515. doi:10.1037/1076-
8971.10.4.492.
Myers, B., Lynn, S., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of
harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393–2412.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01869.x.
Oklahoma State Annotated. tit. 22, §§926–928 (2012).
Pardoe, I., & Weidner, R. R. (2006). Sentencing convicted felons in the United States: A Bayesian
analysis using multilevel covariates. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 136, 1433–1455.
doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2004.09.014.
Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on
capital decision making. Criminology, 49, 129–161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.x.
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. E., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC
2007—operator’s manual. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
Rayburn, N., Mendoza, M., & Davison, G. C. (2003). Bystanders’ perceptions of perpetrators and victims
of hate crimes: An investigation using the person perception paradigm. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 18, 1055–1074. doi:10.1177/0886260503254513.
Salerno, J. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Emotional evidence and jurors’ judgments: The promise of
neuroscience for informing psychology and law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 273–296.
doi:10.1002/bsl.861.
Shestowsky, D., & Horowitz, L. M. (2004). How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock
jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 305–337. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000029141.
46850.fb.
South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 905 (1989).
Szmania, S. J., & Gracyalny, M. L. (2006). Addressing the court, the offender and the community: A
communication analysis of victim impact statements in a non-capital sentencing hearing.
International Review of Victimology, 13(3), 231–249.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated. art. 37.07, (2012).

123
66 Soc Just Res (2014) 27:45–66

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (n.d.) Publications: Victim services division. Retrieved from http://
www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/pubs_victim_impact_statement.html
Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Empathetic identification and punitiveness: A middle-range theory
of individual differences. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 283–312. doi:10.1177/1362480609336495.
Vernon’s Texas statutes and codes annotated, penal code, Title 3 § 12.33 (2009).
Vernon’s Texas statutes and codes annotated, penal code, Title 5 § 22.011 (2009).
Virginia Code Annotated §19.2-295 (2012).
Wevodau, A. L. (2010). Is expert testimony in sexually violent predator proceedings consistent with
sexual offender recidivism research? A content analysis of deposition transcripts. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.

123
Copyright of Social Justice Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.