Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: the mediating role of attributional complexity
At the penalty phase of a capital trial, jurors endorse and weigh aggravators and mitigators. The purpose of the current studies was to examine how gender differences in attributional complexity relate to endorsements of aggravators and mitigators. In Study 1, undergraduate participants
read definitions of aggravators and mitigators and rated the extent to which circumstances were aggravating or mitigating. In Study 2, a death qualified community sample read a trial summary, rated the extent to which aggravators and mitigators were present in the case, reported whether mitigators
outweighed aggravators, and rendered a sentence. Results indicated that gender differences in mitigator endorsement were mediated by attributional complexity, and that gender differences in sentencing decisions were serially mediated by attributional complexity, mitigator endorsement, and
aggravator and mitigator weighing.
Keywords: Attributional complexity; aggravating and mitigating evidence; death penalty; gender differences; juror decision-making
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: 1: Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA 2: Department of Psychology, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX, USA 3: Criminal Justice Department and Interdisciplinary Social Psychology Ph.D. Program, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
Publication date: 14 September 2018
- Access Key
- Free content
- Partial Free content
- New content
- Open access content
- Partial Open access content
- Subscribed content
- Partial Subscribed content
- Free trial content