I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Ken Rotenberg for providing me with the opportunity to carry out this study, and for his guidance throughout the entire process. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge my secondary reader Dr. Dwight Mazmanian. I would also like to thank Jolene Wintermute, Peter Belleau, Richard Belleau, Michael Belleau, and Kathleen Comba for their assistance with my experimentation.

One hundred and ninety-five undergraduate students participated in a mock-jury investigation to evaluate the behavioral and functional influences of principled moral reasoning and loneliness. Deliberations, following the administration of pretrial DIT Principled Moral Reasoning (PMR) scale and UCLA Loneliness scale, provided support for the seemingly robust principled moral reasoning findings. Participants with the highest levels of legal reasoning dominated jury deliberations and were able to shift other jury members towards their opinions. However, no significant relationship was found between deliberation behavior and loniliness. Additionally, no interaction was found between moral reasoning and loneliness. While the principled moral reasoning phenomenon suggests that only few jury members are controlling deliberations, this is in fact a positive finding. These jurors have the most developmentally advanced reasoning and are thereby focusing the jury on legally relevant information.

A growing body of research suggests that a number of juror personality components are linked to the jury decision making processes (Berg & Vidmar, 1975; Lupher, Cohen, & Bernard, 1987; Phares & Wilson, 1972 ). The purpose of this study is to examine whether: (a) loneliness is associated with how individuals function as jury members, and whether that affects jury deliberations and verdicts; and (b) Principle Moral Reasoning is associated with dominance of jury deliberations and verdicts, as have been found by Rotenberg, Hewlett, and Siegwart (1998).

A number of previous investigations have found that a jurors personality can influence jury decision making. Berg and Vidmar (1975) investigated the relationship between a juror’s degree of authoritarianism, the severity of verdicts, and the type of trial information that was attended too. Results indicated that high authoritarians were more severe jurors than low authoritarians, particularly with cases regarding defendants with low social status. High authoritarians gave defendants of low social status significantly more severe sentences then their higher status counterparts. As well, when tested, high authoritarians recalled mainly legally-irrelevant information regarding the defendant’s characteristics.

Research has also examined the relation between a juror’s locus of control beliefs and the jury deliberation decision processes (Phares & Wilson, 1972). The internal locus of control trait consists of ones belief that individuals have control over their lives and actions. Those with an external locus of control believe that individuals do not have any significant control over their lives, and thus cannot be held responsible for events that occur around them. The author’s found that mock-jurors who scored high on a measure of internal control attributed more responsibility to the defendants than jurors who scored high on a measure of external control. Sosis (1974) believes that these effects occur because of projection. It appears that jurors were applying their own self-perceptions of responsibility onto their judgements of others.

Of particular importance to this investigation is a number of studies suggesting that one of the key predictors of juror behavior is the individuals achieved level of principle moral reasoning (Lupher, Cohen, & Bernard, 1987; Rotenberg & Hurlbert, 1992; Rotenberg, Hewlett, & Siegwart, 1998). Based on Kohlberg’s (1969, 1978) theory of moral development and Tapp’s (Tapp, 1987; Tapp & Kohlberg, 1971; Tapp & Levine, 1977) extension of the theory into the realm of legal reasoning, an individual’s personality can be depicted on a dimension of moral/legal reasoning. Three different levels of moral reasoning are identified in the theories: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. As an individual develops an increasingly complex system of morals they will move upwards through the levels, his or her moral/legal reasoning becoming increasingly complex. High moral reasoners have been shown to have considerable influence over the jury. Those with the highest levels of legal reasoning are represented by dominance in jury deliberations and an assumption of personal responsibility for law creation, adherence, interpretation, and judgement (Rotenberg & Hurlbert, 1992). Individuals who had attained postconventional reasoning were the most active jurors and presented legally relevant opinions. Rotenberg, Hewlett, and Siegwart (1998) indicate that this dominance may go beyond deliberation behavior, in that high moral reasoners pretrial judgements are predictive of the jury’s final verdict. Lupher, Cohen, and Bernard (1997) concluded that high moral reasoners influenced jury verdicts and were seen more favorably by fellow jurors in terms of jury dominance and levels of morality. Principle moral reasoning studies have provided one of the few positive portrayals of the jury deliberation process. Postconventional reasoners are typically the most active jurors and have a tendency to focus on only relevant case information.

Researchers have not yet addressed whether the loneliness attributes of a juror affects his or her functioning as a jury member. Investigations of the social functioning of lonely individuals predicts that loneliness may bear on the jury deliberation process. Hansson and Jones (1981) found that in group interactions lonely individuals were less confident in their opinions then non-lonely individuals. They were also less willing to share these opinions publically. As well, lonely participants were seen as more likely to respond in an extreme manner towards influence attempts then their nonlonely counterparts. When considering important judgements regarding a persons welfare lonely males were shown to be less likely to follow social consensus. The opposite patterned emerged with lonely females, who were more likely to shift towards the opinion of the consensus. A second relevant social functioning study states that when compared to nonlonely participants, lonely individuals were less effective at encoding information. In this case, chronically lonely participants were shown to be less accurate at encoding nonverbal communication, a deficit that may affect the type and quality of information a lonely juror brings to the deliberations (Gerson & Perlman, 1979). Together these studies lead to questions regarding the legal effectiveness of jurors who are chronically lonely. The data suggests that in a trial situation a lonely juror may be inept in both the encoding of information during the trial and their subsequent behavior during jury deliberation.

As was previously stated, the purpose of this study is to examine whether juror loneliness characteristics affects how one functions as a jury member, and subsequently whether this can affect the decision making processes of the jury. A replication of the moral reasoning portion of Rotenberg, Hewlett, and Siegwart’s (1998) mock-jury investigation will be attempted. Consistent with previous research on the social functioning of lonely individuals it is expected that lonely participants will be inactive jurors, in that they will not disclose there opinions as readily as non-lonely jury members. It is also expected that this behavioral deficit will be noticed by other jury members, whom will rate the lonely jury members less favorably in regards to their contributions to the deliberation. Along with the loneliness manipulations, principle moral reasoning levels are also to be investigated. As is consistent with virtually all previous research on legal moral reasoning, high principle moral reasoners are expected to dominate the jury deliberations. An interaction between moral reasoning levels and loneliness on deliberations could very well be present, and will thereby be investigated. One question that may be answered is whether or not lonely individuals can even achieve or express high principle moral reasoning. If not, their effectiveness as jury members should be seriously placed into question.

Method

One hundred and ninety-five undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology course participated in the study as mock-jury members. The mean age was 22.28 (SD = 6.23) ranging from 18.5 years to 60.5 years old. Each student received course credit for participating.

Loneliness. Loneliness levels were determined using the twenty-item revised UCLA Loneliness scale (Version 3). Psychometric analyses of the UCLA scale have shown it to be a valid and highly reliable measure of loneliness across varied populations (Russel, 1996). Data indicates that the measure has very high internal consistency, with a coefficient alpha between .89 and .94. Test-retest reliability is also highly significant, (r = .73). Significant correlations between the UCLA scale and other measures of loneliness, such as the NYU Loneliness scale and the Differential Loneliness scale, suggest that this test has strong convergent validity.

Principled Moral Reasoning. Moral reasoning levels were evaluated using the short version of the DIT Principled Moral Reasoning Scale. With this measure participants are presented with dilemmas with which they must rank order a number of issues based on their relative importance. The version used for this study consisted of a sample dilemma plus three dilemmas—"Heinze and the Drug", "Escaped Prisoner", and "Doctor’s Dilemma". The DIT is a commonly used measure of principle moral reasoning that has been shown to have high reliability and validity (Rest, 1975). The DIT has displayed significant internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha between .71 and .79. Analysis also supports the DIT’s validity, providing support of the measures criterion-group and discriminate validity. Also of interest regarding measures of morality and moral reasoning is the possibility of participants faking good. With the DIT this does not appear to be an issue. When participants were instructed to fake good their scores were not significantly higher than participants under normal conditions.

Dominance as Rated by Jurors. Each student rated the other jurors on three 5-point measures: (1) domination of jury deliberations, (2) identification of legal points, and (3) influence on jury’s decision. A final measure asked participants whom they would select as a foreman for future juries.

A few months prior to the primary study, all students registered in introductory psychology courses were administered the UCLA Loneliness scale. From this data students were selected for jury assignment in order to balance for loneliness and gender.

Upon arrival, each participant was administered the DIT, including the Principled Moral Reasoning scale, individually. Next the participants were engaged in the mock trial. The participants were given a brief synopsis of the charges and the characters involved in order to familiarize them with the case. Next the participants listened to an audiotaped version of the trial. This trial was part of a larger investigation for which there are two slightly modified versions of the defendant’s characteristics. In the two conditions the defendant is described as having characteristics typical of either a lonely or non-lonely individual. For the purpose of this particular study, however, the two conditions were collapsed for the statistical analysis. Once the audiotaped trial was complete, participants completed a secret ballot in which they rated the defendant’s level of guilt on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very likely to be not guilty) to 5 (very likely to be guilty) and recommended a sentencing length. Next, participants were given an explanation of the purpose of the jury and the jury deliberation procedure. Before beginning the deliberation the jury was encouraged to come to a unanimous decision and was informed that they would be videotaped while deliberating. The jurors selected a foreman and begin the deliberation procedure. Three-quarters of the way through deliberation the foreman was asked to take the first ballot. They were told that they would have to come to a final decision of innocent, hung, or guilty by the end of the deliberation session.

Once completed participants rated other jury members on a 5-point scale regarding each members domination of the deliberations, identification of legally relevant points, and their influence towards the jury’s final decision. Finally, they indicated whom they would nominate as foreman if they were to hear another case.

Results

The Chronbach alpha for the UCLA Loneliness Scale (second administration) was .86, evidence of the tests internal consistency. The mean of the UCLA (second administration) was 32.35 (SD = 6.98) and the scores ranged from 20 to 51. There was highly significant correlation between the first and second UCLA Loneliness Scale administrations, r (152) = .67, p < .001, yielding evidence for test-retest reliability of the scale. The second administration of the UCLA Loneliness Scale was used in all of subsequent analyses

The Principle Moral Reasoning scale (PMR) score mean was 21 (SD = 5.7) and ranged from 6 to 38. There was some evidence to support the validity of DIT, specifically the PMR scale. The PMR scale tended to be positively correlated with age, r (185) = .13, p = .08. Thus, the older a participant is, the more likely they would be a principled moral reasoner. Additionally, stage 3 of conventional reasoning stages, which are characterized by less advanced moral reasoning, tended to be negatively correlated with age, r (188) = -.13, p = .08.

One area of concern regarding validity of the PMR scale, displayed in Table 1, is the fact that there were positive correlations between scores on that scale and the preconventional and conventional reasoning stages (S2, S3, and S4) scores. Typically the preconventional and conventional stages are negatively correlated with PMR scale scores. Although it is not unreasonable to find a positive relation between stage 4 (S4) and the PMR scale, the relations between PMR scale scores and the other stages poses a methodological and interpretative problem.

As shown in Table 2, the four measures of jury dominance were highly intercorrelated. Therefore, the measures were combined into a single jury dominance score.

There was no appreciable relation between the two personality measures: loneliness was not significantly associated with either PMR or the other stages of legal reasoning.

Contrary to expectations the juror dominance scores were not associated with loneliness, r (187) = .09. The simple correlation between jury dominance and PMR levels did not attain significance, r (184) = .07. As noted, one problem encountered was that PMR scale scores were correlated with the endorsement of the other less advanced stages of the DIT. It was necessary, therefore, to removed that confounded variance from PMR scores in order to assess the relation between principled moral reasoning and jury dominance. When the conventional levels (S2, S3, and S4) of the moral reasoning dimensions were statistically controlled for (i.e., partialled out), a significant association between PMR and juror dominance was found, r (177) = .20, p < .01. Therefore, those jury members who had achieved the highest levels of legal reasoning were rated by other jurors as dominating the deliberations.

There was some additional evidence to suggest that principled moral reasoning was linked to jury deliberations and verdicts. PMR scale scores were negatively correlated with a jurors voting behavior at both the first and final deliberation votes, r (184) = -.17, p = .02, and r (184) = -.19, p = .01 respectively. This indicates that jurors who were high in principled moral reasoning were more likely to vote innocent at both votes than jurors low in principled moral reasoning. Also, there was a tendency for PMR scale scores to be negatively correlated with jury verdicts, r (184) = -.13, p = .09. This indicates that juries composed of with high principled moral reasoners were more likely to decide that the defendant was innocent than were juries composed of low principled moral reasoners. Given that the majority of juries decided that the defendant was innocent, the findings may be taken to suggest that the verdict was promoted by jurors who were high in principled moral reasoning .

The principled moral reasoning components of the study were supportive of the legal reasoning hypotheses. Once the confounded variance from PMR scores were partialled out, a strong relationship between the PMR dimension of the DIT and domination of the jury deliberations was found. Additionally, a trend level relationship was found between the guilt-innocense opinions of the principled moral reasoners and the final jury verdicts. This finding is also suggestive of the principled moral reasoners dominance of the jury deliberations, as these jurors were apparently shifting the other jurors towards their viewpoints. The principled moral reasoners jury deliberation dominance and functional influence over verdicts continues to be a robust and well replicated phenomena (Rotenberg, Hewlett, & Siegwart, 1998; Rotenberg & Hurlbert, 1992).

The legal reasoning inherit in principled moral reasoners is supported by the significant relationship between moral reasoning levels and innocent verdicts. In this particular study the criminal case was somewhat ambiguous with very little concrete evidence. Thus the tendency towards innocent votes with high moral reasoners is consistent with expectations.

Peer juror ratings did not significantly indicate that lonely jurors were any less active or dominant then their non-lonely counterparts. Additionally, the lack of any significant relationship between the loneliness and principled moral reasoning suggests a distinctiveness between these two personality dimensions. Regardless of ones level of loneliness, high levels of moral reasoning can be successfully develop. Considering the results of this study, there is no reason to suggest that lonely jury members would be any less effective during deliberations then nonlonely jury members.

The relation between juror dominance and loneliness was predominantly evaluated by peer-ratings of other jury members. It is possible that a more precise and objective evaluation of deliberation behavior, such as behavioral coding, would have identified significant effects of loneliness on juror deliberation behavior, as well as provide additional support of the principled moral reasoners deliberation patterns.

In conclusion, it would appear that additional support has been provided for the seemingly robust principled moral reasoning findings. Participants with the highest levels of legal reasoning dominated jury deliberations and were able to shift other jury members towards their opinions. While this phenomenon suggests that only few jury members are controlling deliberations, this is in fact a positive finding. These jurors have the most developmentally advanced reasoning and are thereby focusing the jury on legally relevant information.

Berg, K., & Vidmar, N. (1975). Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behaviour. Journal of Research and Personality, 9, 147-157.

Gerson, A. C., & Perlman, D. (1979). Loneliness and expressive communication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88 (3), 258-261.

Hansson, R. O., & Jones, W. H. (1981). Loneliness, cooperation, and conformity among american undergraduates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 103-108.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1978). Revisions in the theory and practice of moral development. In W. Damon (Ed.), Moral development: New directions for child development (Vol. 2, pp. 83-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lupfer, M. B., Cohen, R. & Bernard, J. L. (1987). The influence of level of moral reasoning on the decisions of jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 653-667.

Phares, E., & Wilson, K. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40, 392-406.

Rest, J. R. (1975). Longitudinal study of the Defining Issues Test of moral judgement: A strategy for analyzing developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 11, 738-748.

Rotenberg, K. J., Hewlett, M. G., & Siegward, C. M. (1998). Principled moral reasoning and self-monitoring as predictors of jury functioning. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 167-173.

Rotenberg, K. J., & Hurlbert, M. J. (1992). Legal reasoning and jury deliberations. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 543-544.

Russel, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.

Sosis, R. (1974). Internal-external control and the perception of responsibility of another for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 393-399.

Tapp, J. L. (1987). The jury as a socialization experience: A socio-cognitive view. Advances in Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 1-32.

Tapp, J. L., & Kohlberg, L. (1971). Developing senses of law and legal justice. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 65-91.

Tapp, J. L., & Levine, F. J. (Eds.). (1977). Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Table 1

• Letter of Consent
• Statement

Please provide us with your individual opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant Mr. Jim Bell in regards to the charge of armed-robbery. Rate the defendants level of guilt with the following scale.

Place your 1 through 5 rating in the space provided below. Keep in mind that there is no right or wrong answer, it is your personal opinion that we are interested in.

Defendant Guilt Rating

Mr. Jim Bell

Sentencing Survey

Often Juries are asked to make a sentence recommendation to the court. Below you will find five choices for a potential sentencing recommendations. Please provide us with your opinion regarding the level of sentence the defendant, Mr. Bell, should receive in regards to the charge of armed-robbery. Please note that the first time provided is when the defendant would be available for parole, while the second time is when his sentence would be completed.

Place your 1 through 5 rating in the space provided below. Keep in mind that there is no right or wrong answer, it is your personal opinion that we are interested in.

Defendant Guilt Rating

Mr. Jim Bell

• Foreman Instructions
• Criminal Code
• Case Transcripts
• Voting Sheet
• Sentencing Survey

THIS PACKAGE CONTAINS:

• • THE CRIMINAL CODE FOR ARMED ROBBERY (2)
• • THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS (2)
• • FIRST & FINAL JURY VOTE SHEETS

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JURY TO EXAMINE ALL THE AVAILABLE TESTIMONY, AND EACH ASPECT OF THE ATTACHED CRIMINAL CODE, SO THAT THEY MAY COME TO AN UNANIMOUS AND RELEVANT DECISION. IF AFTER DELIBERATION THE JURY CANNOT COME TO A UNANIMOUS DECISION SIMPLY INDICATE THAT THE JURORS INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON THE FINAL VOTING SHEET AND INDICATE THAT THE JURY IS HUNG.

343. Every one commits robbery who

Lawyer: Could you please state for the record your name and place of employment.

Mr. J. White: My name is John White. I work at Total Convenience, a corner store on Main Street.

Lawyer: Could you please explain to us what happened on September 24^th.

Mr. J. White: I was working the day shift at the store. A man entered the store wearing a ski mask. It was obvious what he was there to do, so I triggered the silent alarm. The man then came up to me, pulled out a knife and demanded money. As I started to take the money out of the cash register you could here sirens in the distance. This must of spooked the guy, because he took off before he could get the money.

Lawyer: Could you describe the man?

Mr. J. White: We have a marking tape on the door that helps us figure out someone’s height. He was about six-feet tall. He was kind of tall and skinny. He was wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs jacket and blue jeans.

Lawyer: Thank you Mr. White, we have no further questions for you at this time.

Lawyer: We would like to call Constable Smith to the stand. Constable Smith you were the officer who apprehended the defendant Mr. Bell?

Cnst. Smith: I saw Mr. Bell walking down the street as I approached the convenience store. As I pulled into the parking lot Mr. Bell looked back at me and started to run. When I caught up to him he acted apprehensive and was highly defensive. I at that time suspected that he was involved with the alarm at the store, but it wasn’t until after I talked to the clerk that he was charged with arm robbery.

Lawyer: So you charged Mr. Bell for the robbery because he appeared to be fleeing the scene and that he fit the general description of the robber’s build and clothing.

Cnst. Smith: I suspect that he dropped them somewhere right after he had left the store. By the time the area had been searched they could not be found. I figured someone in the area had either picked them up or maybe that Mr. Bell had thrown them into a car or truck that had left the scene before we could search for them. It is a fairly busy area and there was a lot of people around. It was quite a while before we could secure the area and look for the mask or knife.

Lawyer: Thank you Constable Smith we have no further questions.

Lawyer: We would like to call Mr. Bob Johnson to the stand. Mr. Johnson could you please state your place of residence.

Mr. B. Johnson: Well, before the police car pulled up I wasn’t paying much attention. But, when I heard the sirens I looked up and saw some guy running down the street. Next thing I see is the cop chasing him. He caught him just down the road.

Lawyer: Thank you Mr. Johnson we have no further questions for you at this time.

Lawyer: We would like to call Ms. Sarah Williams to the stand. Could you please state your name and occupation for the record.

Ms. S. Williams: My name is Sarah Williams and I am the on-staff social worker at the police station. I interview all of the incoming suspects whom have been charged with a crime.

Lawyer: What are the nature of your interviews?

Ms. S. Williams: We talk about a number of things. I often look at the social network and support systems that the individual has.

Ms. S. Williams: Mr. Bell expressed to me that he feels that he is alienated from others and that he is excluded from events that are happening around him. He feels there is no one he can turn to or depend on. He appears to have no close friends in the community, though he certainly wishes he did. Mr. Bell stated that he personally never initiates any social activities and that whenever he is with a group of people he feels like an outsider and does not have a good time. As a result Mr. Bell isolates himself from others, spending long hours alone watching television and reading.

Lawyer: Thank you Ms. Williams we have no further questions.

Ms. S. Williams: Mr. Bell expressed to me that he feels quite involved with others and that he feels included in the events that are happening around him. He feels that he has others that he can turn to or depend on when necessary. He appears to have a number of close friends in the community and is pleased with his relationships with them. Mr. Bell stated that he often initiates social activities and that whenever he is with a group of people he feels included and has a good time. Mr. Bell in turn appears to be involved in social events and other activities around him, while he also spends some time watching television and reading.

Seat 1

Seat 2

Seat 3

Seat 4

Seat 5

Seat 6

Seat 7

Seat 8

Seat 9

Seat 10

Seat 11

Seat 12

Innocent Guilty

Seat 1

Seat 2

Seat 3

Seat 4

Seat 5

Seat 6

Seat 7

Seat 8

Seat 9

Seat 10

Seat 11

Seat 12

Sentencing Survey

Often Juries are asked to make a sentence recommendation to the court. Below you will find five choices for a potential sentencing recommendations. Please provide us with the jury’s unanimous sentence recommendation the defendant, Mr. Bell, should receive in regards to the charge of armed-robbery. Please note that the first time provided is when the defendant would be available for parole, while the second time is when his sentence would be completed. For example, if the choice was 10 years to 25 years, 10 years would be the time the defendant would be available for parole, while 25 years would be the end of the sentence.

Place your 1 through 5 rating in the space provided below. Keep in mind that there is no right or wrong answer, it is your personal opinion that we are interested in.

Defendant Sentence

Mr. Jim Bell

Please use the scale below to rate the other jurors and yourself, by the assigned seat numbers, on the attributes listed below.

Who would you elect as a foreman if this jury were to hear another case? (Select one only): Seat Number:

Written By Michael W. Decaire