     |
   |
Determining the factor structure of the Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire
(Completed – Manuscript preparation)
Since the development of the Legal Attitudes Questionnaire (LAQ) by Boehm in 1968, psycholegal researchers have used the measure to assess the construct of legal authoritarianism in research participants and jurors. While the LAQ has been used in numerous research projects, it is interesting to note that the factor structure of the measure has never been confirmed. According to Boehm (1968), the measure consists of three factors relating to authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism, and equalitarianism. However, no research has ever confirmed this factor structure. Kravitz, Cutler, & Moran (1993) revised the LAQ into a more internally consistent measure and conducted the only known factor analysis of the questionnaire. They, however, did not believe that the measure assessed three independent factors. Instead, they attempted to fit a single factor model to the data believing that the singular factor was "authoritarianism". Goodness of fit indices did not support a single factor model and they report that numerous exploratory factor analyses did not reveal an interpretable factor structure. The purpose of this current research is to attempt to determine the factor structure of the revised LAQ developed by Kravitz et al. (1993). To date, we have conducted confirmatory factor analyses of three hypothesized factor structures. The analyses suggest that a structure proposed by Couch & Sundre (2001) is the most appropriate factor structure for the measure. We are currently writing up a manuscript for submission.
Research Team: Dr. Stephen J. Ross
Dr. Osvaldo F. Morera (University of Texas at El Paso)
Dr. Scott Culhane (University of Wyoming)
Evaluating decision processes in jurors with ADHD: An application of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Development)
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), posits that individuals process information through central and peripheral routes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Processing information through the central route is an effortful process requiring the individual to methodically consider the quality of the information provided and render a decision based upon that information. However, information processing in the peripheral route requires little effort and decisions are based more on peripheral cues (e.g., the credibility of the source) rather than on an effortful evaluation of the information provided. Past research has shown that in order to process information via the central route individuals need the motivation and ability (i.e., cognitive resources/executive functions) to do so, and if they lack either ability or motivation they will process information via the peripheral route (Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Research on juror decision-making has found that jurors who receive testimony that is highly complex will look for peripheral cues (e.g., the credibility of the expert witness, the length of the argument, the attractiveness of the witness) to assist with formulating their decisions regarding the testimony rather than focusing on the testimony itself (Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008; Schuller, Terry, & McKimmie, 2005). Therefore, we are interested in determining whether there are potential jurors who are more likely to engage in the peripheral processing of testimony (i.e., adults diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). The present research will examine how jurors with ADHD process information in order to assess how these processes relate to juror decisions. In this research, the decision-making strategies of clinically diagnosed ADHD adults will be compared with non-ADHD adults using an Elaboration Likelihood Model paradigm in which message complexity and the credibility of the message source are manipulated (e.g., Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008; Schuller, Terry, & McKimmie, 2005). Results of this project will allow us to determine whether ADHD adults tend to engage in more peripheral processing than non-ADHD adults and whether any differences in the processing strategies between these two groups also influences juror verdicts.
Research Team: Brian Cahill (Graduate Assistant) – Principal Investigator
Dr. Stephen J. Ross
Estimating Reasonable Doubt: The influence of individual differences, strength of evidence, and crime seriousness
(Development)
Most research evaluating the Reasonable Doubt standard has examined juror perceptions of what constitutes reasonable doubt; however, little research has assessed the factors that may influence the assessment of reasonable doubt in various cases. Some researchers have found that jurors’ reasonable doubt standards are influenced by the judicial instructions given to the jurors (Wright & Hall, 2007) and the gender of the victim (Wright, Hanoteau, Parkinson, & Tatham, 2009). There is also some additional scientific-based and anecdotal evidence suggesting that the crime seriousness may influence reasonable doubt standards (Frisbie & Garrett, 2005; Wright et al., 2009). For example, jurors may be more willing to convict even when they have doubt of the validity of the evidence against the defendant if the crime is particularly serious (e.g., rape/murder of an 8-year old girl; Frisbie & Garrett, 2005). The present research will evaluate whether crime seriousness and the strength of evidence influence the reasonable doubt standard used by jurors. In addition, individual differences of the jurors (e.g., authoritarian personality, social dominance orientation, Belief in a Just World, etc.) will be assessed and used to determine whether these differences also influence the placement of reasonable doubt standards. We are currently in the process of developing materials for pilot testing of crime seriousness and plan to begin data collection within a couple weeks pending IRB approval.
Research Team: Dr. Stephen J. Ross