Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

The present study explored how evaluations of a defendant’s character can influence mock jurors’ judgments using a beliefupdating paradigm. Participants (N=143) were shown a trial transcript in which we manipulated the defendant’s character by introducing an irrelevant moral behavior observed before the crime as well as prior conviction. We found that bad defendants were consistently judged to be more deserving of punishment than good defendants. While character information influenced judgments of guilt, blame, and intentionality immediately after it was presented, the effect diminished as participants received more information about the case, and ultimately did not shift their verdicts. In general, participants also mitigated moral judgments for good defendants rather than exacerbate judgments for bad defendants. Thematic analysis of judgment rationales also revealed that participants reasoned about actions, norms, and mental states when evaluating blame and punishment. We discuss the implications of this study in moral and legal decision-making.