The Role of Jurors’ Emotions in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Jurors are expected to evaluate case evidence and make conviction decisions in an objective and rational manner. However, research has demonstrated that jurors are often biased by emotionally eliciting evidence. The present studies examined the role of emotion in decision-making in Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) cases, given that these cases are expected to elicit a significant range and degree of emotion. Across three studies, I measured mock jurors’ emotional reactions to a child witness testifying about child sexual abuse and examined how their emotions were related to case perceptions and decisions. These studies examined 1) what emotions are elicited when jurors are presented with a trial transcript of a witness testifying in a CSA case and how those emotions relate to case perceptions and decisions, 2) how trial specific variables influence these emotional reactions, and 3) whether trial procedures can reduce the effect of emotions on decision making. Results from Study 1 revealed that when mock jurors read a transcript of a child witness being questioned on the stand about CSA allegations, they showed significant increases in anger, disgust, and sadness. Jurors overwhelmingly voted to convict despite seeing minimal case evidence. A second study (Study 2) was conducted to test the roles of case-specific factors (witness age and evidence strength) in jurors emotional reactions and decisions, and to produce greater variability in emotional responses and verdict decisions. Study 2 also identified witness credibility ratings as a mechanism by which emotions influence final case decisions. Study 3 examined the effectiveness of trial procedures such as emotion regulation instructions and included group deliberations to test whether instructions reduced the biasing effect of emotions and explore whether deliberations minimize or enhance the effects of emotion on decision making. Results from Study 3 revealed that emotion regulation instructions decreased jurors’ reported anger and jurors were less likely to convict after deliberations. Overall, this series of studies revealed that jurors are vulnerable to making case decisions based on their emotional reactions to the case but emotion regulation instructions and deliberations may help jurors remain objective. Thus, emotion regulation instructions and deliberations are promising areas for future research