Selected Publications and Presentations

 

Shaw, J.I., & Steers, W.N. (2001). Gathering information to form an impression: Attribute categories and information valence. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(1), 1-17.

This study investigated how target-relevant attribute categories and information valence affect information search during impression formation. Equal numbers of male and female participants (N=270) formed a likability impression of a male or female target person by accessing positive and/or negative information about the target person's appearance and/or traits. The information environment permitted either unicategorical (appearance or trait) or bicategorical (appearance and trait) searches and the information items were either univalent (all positive or all negative) or bivalent (half positive and half negative). As predicted, perceivers accessed more appearance than trait attributes in the unicategorical searches and more trait than appearance attributes in the bicategorical searches (p < .0001). Univalent negative searches were shorter than univalent positive searches (p < .0001), confirming a negativity effect. Bivalent searches restored search length compared to univalent negative searches, with this effect occurring only for traits in unicategorical searches (p < .0001). Results were interpreted in terms of a fundamental preference for more stable trait information, with appearance information used primarily to enable a trait inference.

Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J.I. (2001). Effects of criminal motivation, ability, and opportunity on mock jurors= verdicts. In Roesch, R., Corrado, R.R., & Dempster, R.J. (Eds.). Psychology in the courts: International advances in knowledge. London: Routledge, 97-106.

A study examined the effects on mock jury decision-making of defendant motivation, physical ability, and opportunity to commit a crime by manipulating each in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. 112 jury-eligible participants were randomly assigned to read one of eight versions of a hypothetical murder scenario and were each asked to render a verdict, to recommend a sentencing option, and to make other evaluative judgments of the defendant. It was hypothesized that all three factors would be important to establish guilt. However, since motivation is merely a sufficient condition for guilt, whereas ability and opportunity are necessary conditions, motivation was expected to have an effect only when both ability and opportunity were demonstrated. Log linear analysis confirmed that all three factors influenced mock jurors' verdicts and sentencing options. While the expected interaction between motivation and the other two factors was not obtained for criminal verdicts, sentencing options were affected by motive only when opportunity was also present. Analysis of variance confirmed that motive, ability, and opportunity also affected judgments of criminal responsibility, but personal evaluations of the defendant were influenced only by evidence of motivation. Results were discussed in terms of implications of these three factors for prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal proceedings.

Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J.I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on jury decision-making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(5), 614-630.

Two studies compared the effectiveness of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence on mock juror decision-making. Jury-eligible participants were randomly assigned to read one of eight versions of a hypothetical murder scenario and were each asked to render a verdict, to recommend a sentencing option, and to make other evaluative judgments of the defendant. In Study 1 (N=90), either eyewitness testimony or physical evidence was presented, whereas in Study 2 (N=120), both types of evidence were presented together. Additionally, both studies varied the strength of evidence presented. Log linear analysis confirmed that mock jurors' verdicts and evaluative judgments were influenced to a greater extent by physical evidence than by eyewitness testimony. Strong evidence produced more guilty verdicts than weak evidence. However, combining strong evidence of both types was no more effective than presenting strong evidence of either one. Results were discussed in terms of implications of these factors for prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal proceedings.

Shaw, J.I., & Steers, W.N. (2000). Negativity and polarity effects in gathering information to form an impression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(3), 399-412.

A study was conducted to examine the effects of information valence and extremity on information search during impression formation. One hundred and twenty undergraduates (half men, half women), formed a likeability impression of a target person by searching appearance and trait information that varied in valence and extremity. Searches were shorter with negative vs positive information (negativity effect) and with extreme vs more neutral information (polarity effect). A participant sex x valence x extremity interaction indicated that men's information searches displayed the negativity effect only with extreme information, whereas women's searches displayed the effect regardless of information extremity. Results were discussed in terms of a risk-avoidance impression formation strategy.

Shaw, J.I., & Skolnick, P. (1999). Weapon focus and sex differences in eyewitness identification: Arousal vs salience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2328-2341.

Weapon focus and sex differences in eyewitness accuracy: Arousal vs salience Abstract Competing theories of arousal vs salience and object enhancement vs reduced perceptual processing as explanations for the weapon focus effect in eyewitness identification were examined. Two hundred male and female students viewed a videotape of a male or female intruder rudely barging into a classroom while carrying one of several objects (a book, gun, or an unusual object) and demanding to know the whereabouts of another student. Feature accuracy recall of both the intruder and the object were assessed on a postexperimental questionnaire. Results supported the salience and reduced perceptual processing hypotheses suggesting that weapon focus may be a special instance of a more general salient object effect. The pattern of findings were different when the eyewitness and the intruder were of the same sex than when the sexes were opposite suggesting limitations on the weapon focus effect. An own sex bias in eyewitness identification was replicated when no weapon or unusual objects distracted eyewitnesses, but was reversed when a weapon or unusual objects were present.

Gold, G.J., & Shaw, J.I. (1999). Causal chaining: The structure and complexity of accounts. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(4), 651-666.

Causal chaining: The structure and complexity of accounts Abstract Investigations into perceptions of causality typically presume simple causal explanations. In contrast, this study allowed account complexity and structure to vary. Eighty-nine participants were asked to choose the causes necessary to explain one of four outcomes differing in severity and valence of consequences. They had eight possible causes to choose from that varied along dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability. Most explanations were three causes in length arranged in a temporal chain. Internal, stable, and controllable causes were used more than external, unstable, and uncontrollable causes. Results were consistent with the fundamental attribution error and the need for predictability and control. This suggests that complex explanations of necessary causality may be more common than previously assumed, but that the dimensions used for explanation remain consistent with established theory.

Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J.I. (1997). The O.J. Simpson criminal trial verdict: Racism or status shield? Journal of Social Issues, 53(3), 505-518.

The O.J. Simpson criminal trial verdict: Racism or status shield? Abstract A simulation study investigated the factors which may have led the jury in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial to an acquittal verdict. Black and White mock jurors read a transcript of a murder trial which varied the defendant’s race (Black or White) and celebrity status (high or low). Results confirmed a "Black Racism” hypothesis since Black jurors favored Black over White defendants by voting not guilty more often, recommending more lenient sentences and judging them more positively. In contrast, White jurors did not differentiate between Black and White defendants. Status of the defendant did not affect verdicts or sentencing but did influence evaluative judgments. These results suggest that the O.J. Simpson verdict was likely to have been more influenced by race rather than his celebrity status. Limitations of the findings of this mock jury study were discussed.