The effect of defendant gender on juror decision-making

Research investigating the role of stereotypes in jury decision-making has typically considered stereotypes as acting as peripheral cues in determin ing the credibility of experts or likelihood of guilt of defendants — with counter-stereotypic courtroom participants faring less well. The present study investigated the possibility that the extent to which courtroom participants are stereotypic can alter the mode of information processing. Students (N = 78) read a transcript of a case in which either a male or female allegedly committed an armed robbery. As predicted, the female counter-stereotypic defendant was distracting and effortful processing only occurred when the defendant was male. The male was seen as more guilty and the prosecution's case was more convincing when the prosecution had a strong, but not weak, case. There were no effects of case strength for the female defendant. Results are discussed in terms of the role of stereotypes in the jury decision-making.

Decision-Making Deficits Linked to Real-life Social Dysfunction in Crack Cocaine-Dependent Individuals

Crack cocaine-dependent individuals (CCDI) present abnormalities in both social adjustment and decision making, but few studies have examined this association. This study investigated cognitive and social performance of 30 subjects (CCDI x controls); CCDI were abstinent for 2 weeks. We used the Social Adjustment Scale (SAS), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Disadvantageous choices on the IGT were associated with higher levels of social dysfunction in CCDI, suggesting the ecological validity of the IGT. Social dysfunction and decision making may be linked to the same underlying prefrontal dysfunction, but the nature of this association should be further investigated. (Am J Addict 2010;00: 1-9).