University of Huddersfield Repository
Willmott, Dominic, Boduszek, Daniel and Booth, Nigel The Predictive Ability of Psychological Constructs Upon Verdict Outcome: A Latent Profile Analysis of Juror Decision Making. Original Citation Willmott, Dominic, Boduszek, Daniel and Booth, Nigel (2017) The Predictive Ability of Psychological Constructs Upon Verdict Outcome: A Latent Profile Analysis of Juror Decision Making. In: Forensic Psychology in Canada Conference, 24th27th April 2017, Carleton University, Ottawa. (Unpublished) This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/32032/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or notforprofit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/D
o
mi
n
ic
Wi
llmo
tt,
Pr
o
f.
Da
ni
el
B
o
dus
ze
k &
N
ig
el
B
o
o
th
Un
iv
er
sity
o
f H
u
d
d
er
sfi
eld
-En
g
la
n
d
The
Pr
ed
ic
tiv
e
abili
ty of P
sy
chol
ogi
cal
C
ons
tr
u
cts
u
p
on
V
er
d
ic
t
Ou
tc
ome
:
A L
at
en
t Pr
of
ile
Ana
ly
si
s of
Ju
ror
Dec
isi
o
n
Mak
in
g
D
om
ini
c.W
illm
o
tt
@h
ud.
ac.
uk
@
dom
ini
cwi
llm
o
tt
R
ap
e &
T
h
e
E
n
gli
sh
C
JS
M
ini
st
ry
O
f Just
ice
(201
5)
34
,741
C
as
es
Re
co
rd
ed
b
y Pol
ice
3,851 Cas
es
Pro
ce
ed
ed
to
Cou
rt
Sta
ge
< 11%
o
f to
tal
re
p
o
rt
ed
1,297 Cas
es
–
De
fe
n
d
an
t
Con
victe
d
< 4%
o
f c
as
es
re
p
o
rt
ed
**
UK
Ho
m
e O
ffi
ce
e
st
im
at
es:
60,
000
–
95,
000
R
ap
es
pe
r y
ear
Ra
p
e A
tt
rit
io
n
1
. Deci
si
on
to
R
ep
or
t
V
ic
ti
m ma
y
n
ev
er
re
p
o
rt
-e.
g.
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
to
o
ffe
n
d
er
, f
ear
d
isb
eli
ef,
‘r
e-rap
ed
’
2
. In
ve
st
ig
at
io
n
St
ag
e
Su
sp
ec
t
n
ev
er
d
et
ec
te
d
, p
ol
ic
e d
ro
p
d
u
e t
o
lack o
f
evi
d
en
ce
o
r
vi
cti
m
w
ith
d
ra
w
s
3
. Di
sc
on
tin
ua
tio
n
by
P
ro
se
cut
or
s
CP
S d
ec
id
e
n
o
t
en
o
u
gh
e
vi
d
en
ce
to
se
cu
re
c
o
n
vi
cti
o
n
,
e.
g. c
o
n
se
n
t
co
n
te
st
ed
o
r
vi
cti
m
n
o
t c
o
n
sid
er
ed
cr
ed
ib
le
4
. T
ri
a
l
Ju
d
ge
d
is
mi
ss
al
o
r mo
re
lik
ely
Jur
y d
e
cid
e
N
o
t
Gui
lty
Ju
ry
T
ria
ls
–
E&
W
12 L
ay
J
u
ro
rs
ma
ke
v
erd
ic
t
d
ec
isi
o
n
s
in
iso
lati
o
n
Jud
ge
s
ro
le
:p
ro
vi
d
e l
eg
al
d
ire
cti
o
n
s on
ly
Eli
gib
ility
C
rite
ria
Inc
. c
rit
er
ia:
18
-75
&
re
gist
er
ed
vo
te
r
Exc
. c
rit
er
ia:
se
rio
u
s m
en
tal
h
eal
th
is
su
es
/
cr
im
in
al
c
o
n
vic
tio
n
s
R
an
d
o
ml
y S
e
le
cte
d
Lo
cal
e
le
ct
o
ral
re
gist
er
No
P
re
-tr
ial
Q
ue
st
io
ni
ng
o
r P
er
em
pt
o
ry
C
ha
lle
ng
es
–
Cr im in a l Ju st ic e Ac t, 1988Ju
ro
rs
p
ro
h
ib
ite
d
f
ro
m di
sc
u
ssi
n
g c
ase
po
st
-tr
ial
–
Co n tem p t o f Co u rt Ac t, 19 8 1N
o
Justi
fic
ati
o
n
fo
r ve
rd
ic
t
re
q
u
ire
d
So
Ju
ry
D
ec
isi
o
n
M
ak
in
g m
u
st
wo
rk
ju
st
fi
n
e th
en
…
Ju
ry
B
ia
s R
e
se
ar
ch
Pr
e-Tr
ial
Pu
b
lic
ity
In
ad
m
is
sib
le
Ev
id
en
ce
C
SI
Ef
fe
ct
Wi
tne
ss
A
ttr
ac
tiv
ene
ss
Le
ve
l o
f
Ey
e
C
o
n
tac
t
Ext
ern
al
B
ias
Ef
fect
s
Da
fta
ry
-Ka
p
u
r
et
a
l, (2
0
10
)
A
ss
u
m
p
tio
n
th
at
ju
ro
rs
p
ro
ces
s c
as
es
in
ra
tio
n
al
&
u
n
b
ia
sed
m
an
n
er
, la
rg
el
y i
n
ac
cu
ra
te
= T
ria
l b
y Med
ia
“P
lea
se
d
isreg
a
rd
th
a
t
la
st
st
a
temen
t”
“T
h
ere
wo
u
ld
b
e b
lo
o
d
if
h
e’
d
d
o
n
e
it”
A
ttra
ct
ive
= T
ru
th
fu
l
(e
xcep
tio
n
F
ra
u
d
)
“S
h
e
co
u
ld
b
a
rel
y l
o
o
k
a
t h
im,
s
h
e’
s
lyi
n
g
”
How
ev
er
the
ro
le o
f
Impl
ic
it
bi
as
der
ivi
n
g fr
o
m
in
di
vi
du
al
jur
o
r
cha
rac
ter
ist
ic
s an
d
ps
yc
ho
lo
gic
al
c
o
ns
truc
ts
-les
s w
el
l do
cum
en
ted
R
esear
ch
ha
s pr
o
du
ced
m
ix
ed
fi
n
di
ng
s o
f
a
rel
at
io
ns
hi
p
bet
w
ee
n
the
per
so
n
yo
u
ar
e
an
d
the
ver
di
ct
dec
isi
o
n
in
di
vi
d
ua
ls m
ak
e
Do
m
in
an
t t
heo
ry
m
ai
n
tai
ns
the
st
reng
th
o
f
the
cas
e
an
d
sw
ay
o
f
the
ev
id
enc
e
to
ha
ve
the
gr
ea
tes
t e
ffect
up
o
n
ver
di
ct
in
cl
in
at
io
ns
(P
en
n
in
g
to
n
a
n
d
H
a
st
ie
, 1
9
9
2
)
How
ev
er
as
El
lsw
o
rt
h
(1
9
9
3
) po
in
ts
o
ut
–
wher
e
in
di
vi
du
al
jur
o
rs
f
o
rm
di
ffer
en
t c
o
nc
lu
sio
ns
des
pi
te heari
n
g t
he
sam
e t
es
tim
o
ny
in
a c
as
e,
ev
id
ence
al
o
ne i
s un
lik
el
y t
o
be t
he
m
ai
n
fac
to
r i
m
pa
ct
in
g v
er
di
ct
ch
o
ic
es
Ju
ry
B
ia
s R
e
se
ar
ch
Ju
ror
C
h
ar
act
e
ris
tics
&
D
e
ci
sion
s
Demo
gr
ap
hi
cs
A
ge
, G
en
d
er,
SE
S,
Ra
ce
, O
cc
u
p
ati
o
n
–
mi
xe
d
fi
n
d
in
gs
O
ld
er
Mal
es
Mo
re
Co
n
vi
cti
o
n
P
ro
n
e
Br
o
ad
P
er
so
na
lit
y C
ha
rac
ter
ist
ic
s
Hi
gh
A
u
th
o
ri
tar
ian
ism
In
te
rn
al
lo
cu
s o
f c
o
n
tr
o
l
Ju
st
W
o
rl
d
B
eli
ef’
s
Cr
im
e
Speci
fi
c At
tit
ud
es
Di
re
ctl
y
re
late
d
to
c
ri
me
-th
o
u
gh
t
to
b
e g
re
ate
st
p
re
d
ic
to
r
o
f
ve
rd
ic
t
p
re
fer
en
ce
s
H
ig
h
R
MA
N
.G
verd
ic
ts
(Di
n
o
s
et
a
l, 2
0
14
)
Howev
er
, des
pi
te
so
m
e
sup
po
rt
, o
ve
ral
l per
so
na
lit
y cha
rac
ter
ist
ic
s and
dem
o
graph
ic
s ap
pea
r
in
co
ns
ist
ent
&
weak
predi
ct
o
rs o
f
ve
rdi
ct
o
ut
co
m
e
(L
ie
b
erm
a
n
a
n
d
S
a
le
s,
2
00
7
)
G
re
at
er
Lik
eli
h
o
o
d
o
f
Co
n
vi
cti
o
n
P
re
se
n
t R
at
io
n
ale
Con
str
u
cts
ex
ami
n
ed
in
pas
t
res
ear
ch
g
en
er
al
ly
fa
vo
u
r e
xami
n
in
g
b
ro
ad
w
o
rld
v
iew
s an
d
neg
lec
t
in
tu
iti
vel
y i
mp
o
rtan
t
as
p
ec
ts
o
f J
DM
E.
g.
Em
o
ti
o
n
al
R
es
p
o
n
siv
en
es
s &
E
m
p
ath
ic
u
n
d
er
st
an
d
in
g
De
sir
e t
o
b
e i
n
c
on
tr
ol
, ab
ility
to
m
an
ip
u
la
te
o
th
er
s &
e
goce
n
tri
ci
ty
N
ee
d
fo
r
p
ee
r
acce
p
tan
ce
, in
cl
usi
o
n
&
se
lf-es
teem
M
o
st
res
ear
ch
c
o
n
d
u
ct
ed
in
No
rth
A
m
er
ic
an
c
o
n
te
xt
–
few
ex
p
lor
ati
o
n
s w
ith
in
legi
sla
ti
ve
ly
res
tr
icti
ve
En
gl
is
h
c
o
n
te
xt
Ex
p
lor
ati
o
n
s o
f J
DM
o
ften
si
gn
ific
an
tl
y l
ack
in
g
in
E
co
lo
gi
ca
l V
al
id
ity
Far
re
mov
ed
fr
o
m
tri
al
co
n
te
xt
/ en
vir
o
n
me
n
t
co
n
d
u
ct
ed
W
ri
tte
n
fo
rm
at,
to
o
b
ri
ef
Stud
y
Aims
To
in
ve
sti
ga
te
if
t
h
er
e i
s an
y r
ela
ti
o
n
sh
ip
b
etw
ee
n
p
sy
cho
logi
cal
tr
ai
ts,
cri
m
e
sp
eci
fic
at
ti
tu
d
es
an
d
ju
ry
d
eci
sion
m
ak
in
g, wi
th
in
r
ap
e
tri
als
;
1.
Wh
eth
er
th
er
e i
s an
y r
ela
ti
o
n
ship
b
etw
ee
n
th
e d
im
en
sion
s of
P
sy
ch
o
p
ath
y
,
Rap
e A
tti
tu
d
es
,an
d
Se
lf-Es
te
e
m
, wi
th
ju
ro
rs
in
itial
v
e
rd
ic
t
d
eci
sion
s.
2.
Wh
er
e a
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
e
xi
sts
, is
th
is
co
n
sis
te
n
t
p
o
st
d
e
lib
e
ra
tion
.
Meth
od
s
Liv
e
Tr
ial
S
imula
tion
P
ar
tici
p
an
ts
N
=
108
(9
x 12 pe
rs
o
n
ju
ry
p
an
els
)
Sy
st
ema
ti
c R
an
d
o
m
Sam
p
le
A
ge
ran
ge
18
–
73 (
M
= 45.00, SD =
15.75
)
51%
fe
ma
le
s &
49%
ma
le
s
Ele
ct
o
ral
R
o
le
–
R
an
d
o
m Co
mp
G
en
er
ati
o
n
Ju
ry
Eli
gib
ility
As
se
ss
ed
Meth
od
s
M
ea
su
res
–
Com
p
le
te
d
u
p
o
n
ar
ri
val
D
em
o
gr
ap
h
ic
s q
u
es
tio
n
n
air
e
P
sy
ch
o
p
at
h
ic
P
er
so
n
ali
ty
T
ra
its
S
ca
le
(PPT
S)
–
B
o
d
u
sz
ek
et
a
l (
2
01
6
)
A
cc
ep
ta
n
ce
o
f M
o
d
ern
M
yt
h
s A
b
o
u
t S
ex
u
al
A
gg
res
sio
n
S
ca
le
(AMMSA)
–
Gr
eg
er
et
al
(2007)
Sel
f E
stee
m
S
ca
le
–
R
o
se
n
b
erg
(1989)
Co
m
p
le
te
d
P
o
st
-tr
ia
l
V
er
d
ic
t D
ec
is
io
n
S
h
ee
t 1
&
2
Meth
od
s
Tr
ial
Si
mul
at
io
n
Pr
o
ced
u
re
Li
ve
tr
ial
r
e-en
ac
tme
n
t
(L
aw
ye
rs
/ A
ct
o
rs
)
Base
d
on
g
en
u
in
e
cas
e
-Evi
d
en
ti
al
ly
n
eu
tr
al
co
n
te
n
t
‘Ju
ro
rs
’ o
b
se
rv
ed
tr
ial
in
mo
ck c
o
u
rt
ro
o
m
–
1 fu
ll d
ay
In
str
u
cti
o
n
s g
iv
en
b
y th
e ju
d
ge
Pr
e-d
eli
b
er
ati
o
n
v
er
d
ic
t
d
ec
is
io
n
De
lib
er
at
e
as
g
ro
u
p
Po
st
-d
eli
b
er
ati
o
n
v
er
d
ic
t
d
ec
isi
o
n
In
d
iv
id
u
al
V
er
d
ic
t
D
ec
is
io
n
1
In
d
iv
id
u
al
V
er
d
ic
t
D
ec
is
io
n
2
No
t G
ui
lty
Gu
ilt
y
No
t G
ui
lty
Gu
ilt
y
Ac
qu
aint
anc
e
R
ap
e Ca
se
78.
8%
21.
2%
85.
9%
14.
1%
Tabl
e
1.
In
d
ivi
d
u
a
l J
u
ro
r
D
eci
si
o
n
s
P
re
a
n
d
P
o
st
D
el
ib
era
tio
n
Desc
ript
iv
e
Results
13% o
f ‘
jur
o
rs’ c
ha
ng
ed
ve
rdi
ct
de
cisi
o
n
af
te
r e
xpo
su
re
to
de
libe
ra
tio
n
Wo
rr
yin
gly
–
92%
o
f t
h
o
se
wh
o
c
h
an
ge
d
st
at
ed
th
ey
v
o
te
d
fo
r a
ve
rd
ic
t o
th
er
th
an
f
o
r t
h
e o
n
e t
h
ey
ac
tua
lly
b
eli
ev
ed
N
= 9 (
69%)
–
Tho
ug
h
t de
fe
nd
an
t t
o
be
G
ui
lty
bu
t v
o
te
d
N
.G
.
N
= 4 (
31%)
-Tho
ug
h
t de
fe
nd
an
t t
o
be
N
o
t G
ui
lty
bu
t v
o
te
d
G
.
Analys
is
-Infer
enti
al
Bi
n
ar
y L
ogis
ti
c
R
e
gr
e
ssi
on
A
MM
SA
Sig
. Pre
d
ic
to
r
V
erd
ic
t
O
u
tco
me
Se
lf
Es
te
em
No
n
-S
ig
. Pre
d
ic
to
r
V
erd
ic
t
O
u
tco
me
M od el AI C BI C SSA -BI C LRT p En tr o p y 1 cl ass 2066. 35 2087. 11 2061. 84 N/A N/A N/A 2 cla ss 2030. 51 2064. 25 2023. 19 43. 93 < .0 01 .8 50 3 cl a ss 2011. 70 2058. 42 2001. 57 27. 60 .0 34 .7 46 4 cla ss 2005. 32 2065. 01 1992. 37 15. 70 .1 58 .8 76 N o te. A IC = A kai ke in fo rm at io n c ri teri o n ; BI C = Baye si an in fo rm at io n c ri teri o n ; SSA -BI C = sam pl e si ze adjust e d BI C ; L RT = L o -M end el l-Rubi n’ s adjust e d lik e liho o d rat io te st . Tab le 1 -Fi t I n d ic es fo r t h e La ten t Pro file An a ly sis o f t h e Fo u r Ps yc h o p a th y F a ct o rs o f PP TS
La
te
n
t
Pr
of
ile
A
n
aly
si
s
An
alys
is
-LPA
Fig
u
re
1
.
La
te
n
t Pro
file
A
n
a
lys
is
Pl
o
t o
f
Ps
ycho
pa
th
y
in
Live
T
ri
al
Sa
m
p
le
Evi
d
en
ce
o
f
3 d
isti
n
ct PP
TS
Pr
o
fi
le
s
w
ith
in
jur
o
r
p
o
p
u
la
ti
o
n
Su
b
se
q
u
en
t
ML
R
–
Di
sp
la
ye
d
Cl
as
s 3,
sig
. mo
re
lik
ely
to
r
etu
rn
N
G
v
er
d
ic
t t
h
an
C
las
s 1
K
ey
findi
ng
-Thi
s
w
as
cons
is
te
n
t bot
h
pr
e
-de
libe
ra
tio
n
&
pos
t-de
libe
ra
tion
Cl
as
s 1
Cl
as
s 2
Cl
as
s 3
Ev
id
en
ce
of r
ela
ti
o
n
sh
ip
b
etw
ee
n
p
sy
cho
logi
cal
c
on
stru
cts
an
d
v
er
d
ic
t
ou
tc
ome
,
d
ra
w
s i
n
to
q
u
es
ti
o
n
CJ
S
p
ract
ice
s e
.g.
h
o
w
im
p
ar
ti
al
ar
e j
u
ro
rs
r
eal
ly
?
Th
e n
ee
d
t
o
o
ve
rh
au
l le
gi
sla
ti
ve
re
stri
cti
o
n
s t
o
a
llow
f
o
r
gr
ea
te
r
q
u
es
ti
o
n
in
g
o
f
ju
ro
rs
is
h
ighl
igh
te
d
Po
ss
ib
ility
m
ak
in
g
a
case
fo
r
‘s
cr
ee
n
in
g
o
u
t’
ju
ro
rs
wh
o
se
ch
ar
act
eri
sti
cs
p
re
d
isp
os
e th
em
tow
ar
d
s ce
rt
ai
n
v
er
d
ic
ts
Mai
n
Ou
tc
ome
&
Ob
jec
ti
ve
–
En
su
re
ju
ry
tri
al
s &
v
er
d
ic
t
d
eci
sion
s a
re
f
ai
r
for
b
o
th
v
icti
m
s &
d
ef
en
d
an
ts
Fu
tu
re
re
se
ar
ch
Te
st
th
e e
ffe
ct
u
p
o
n
v
er
d
icts
w
h
en
scr
ee
n
in
g t
ech
n
iq
u
es
em
p
loy
ed
Doe
s t
h
e p
re
d
ic
ti
ve
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
h
ol
d
u
p
in
ot
h
er
cas
es
,
h
omi
ci
d
e / D
V?
Im
p
lic
ati
o
n
s &
A
p
p
lic
ati
o
n
s
Bo d u sz ek , D ., D eb o wska , A ., D h in gra , K. , & D eL isi , M . (2 01 6). In tro d u ct io n an d v al id at io n o f P syc h o p at h ic P erso n al ity Tra its Sc al e (P P TS ) in a lar ge p ri so n sam p le. Jo u rn a l o f Cr im in a l J u st ice ,46 , 9 -17 . Bo d u sz ek , D ., D ebo wsk a, A . an d Wi llm o tt, D . (2 0 1 7 ). A N ew M o d el o f P sy ch o p at h y. Th e Cu st o d ia l Rev iew , 8 1, 16 -17 . D aft ary ‐Kapu r, T., D u m as, R. , & P enro d , S. D . (2 0 1 0 ). Ju ry d ec isi o n ‐m aki n g b iases an d m et h o d s to c o u n ter th em . L eg a l a n d cri m in o lo g ica l p sy ch o lo g y, 15 (1 ), 1 33 -154. Di n o s, S., Bu rr o wes , N ., H amm o n d , K. , & C u n liffe , C . (2 01 4). A syst em at ic revi ew o f ju ri es' assess m en t o f ra p e vic tim s: D o ra p e m yt h s im p ac t o n ju ro r d ec isi o n -m aki n g? In ter n a tio na l J o u rn a l o f La w, Cr im e a n d Ju st ice . Ell iso n , L ., & M u n ro , V. E . (2 0 1 4 ). ‘T el lin g t al es’ : ex p lo ri n g n arr at iv es o f life an d law wi th in th e (m o ck) ju ry ro o m . L eg a l S tu d ies , n /a -n /a. do i: 10 .1 11 1/ lest .1 20 51 Gerg er , H ., Kl ey , H ., Bohn e r G. , Si ebl er , F. . (2 0 1 3 ). A cc ep ta n ce o f M o d er n M yt h s A b o u t S exu a l A g g ress io n (A M M SA ) sca le . M easurem ent In st ru m ent D at ab ase fo r th e So cial Sc ienc e. Ret ri ev ed fro m ww w. m id ss. ie Lieberm an , J . D ., & Sa les, B. D . (2 0 0 7 ). Et h ica l a n d P ro fess io n a l Iss ues in S ci en tifi c Ju ry S el ect io n . In (Ed s) Sc ie nt ifi c J ury Se le ct io n (pp. 1 8 7-20 0 ). Washi n gt o n : A m eri can P sy ch o lo gic al A sso ciat io n P ress. P en n in gt o n , N ., & H ast ie, R. (1 99 2). E xp lai n in g t h e ev id en ce: T est s o f th e St o ry M o d el fo r ju ro r d ec isi o n m aki n g. Jo u rn a l o f P er so n a lit y a nd S o cia l P sy ch o lo g y, 62 (2 ), 1 8 9 . Ro senb erg , M . (1 96 5 ). Ro senb erg sel f-est ee m sc al e (RSE ). A cc ep ta n ce a n d co m m itm en t t h er a p y. M ea su res p a cka g e ,61 . Wi llm o tt, D . & O o st in ga , M . (I n p ress). S cien tifi c J u ry Sel ec tio n . In B. Ba ker, R. M in h as , & L . Wi lso n (E d s. ) Wh a t y o u n eed to kn o w a b o u t P sy ch o lo g y a n d La w: Fa ct b o o k Vo lu m e II. E u ro p ean A sso ciat io n o f P sy ch o lo gy an d L aw. Wi llm o tt, D ., an d Bo d u sz ek , D . (2 0 1 6 ). Rap e o n tri al : T h e in fl u enc e o f ju ry b ias o n v erdi ct o u tc o m e. T h e Ju st ice Ga p . Ret ri ev ed fro m h ttp :/ /t h ejust ic eg ap .c o m /2 0 1 6 /0 9 /rap e -tri al -in fl u enc e -ju ry -b ias -v erdi ct -o u tc o m e/
