Reducing Juror Biases with Perspective Taking and Symbols

P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 53 Chapter Two: The Role of Perspective Taking in Reducing Juror Biases and the Effects of Religious Symbols “The life of almost any unfortunate, if rightly understood, can be readjusted to some plan of order and system, instead of left to drift on to ruin, the victim of ignorance, hatred and chance”-Darrow (1940, p.494). This chapter will outline a study designed to investigate the effects of religious symbols and perspective taking in courtrooms. This study aims to assess whether religious symbols and instructions to take the perspective of the defendant will alter participant’s levels of rational and experiential processing and in turn, how participants come to their sentencing decisions. Furthermore, this study aims to determine whether perspective taking can inhibit the expression of biases and experiential thoughts. Additionally it investigates individual differences, such as one’s religious identification, religious affiliation and reported devotionalism, which may affect verdicts and interact with rational and experiential thought processes. Specifically this research aims to answer the following questions: 1) Do participants hold inherent religious biases? 2) Are sentences reduced when perspective taking is present? Do directives of perspective taking reduce any religious biases present? 3) Are ingroup/outgroup biases provoked by knowledge of the religion of the defendant, altering verdicts? 4) Does the presence of a holy book and religious symbols increase experiential thinking as seen through REI measures? 5) Do directives to take the perspective of the defendant increase rational thinking in jurors? 6) How does thinking experientially versus rationally affect the verdict and how people come to their decisions? Do jurors depend on instincts over facts when thinking experientially? And finally, 7) do P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 54 the religious conditions affect the way participants view themselves, as seen through measures of Religious Identification and Devotionalism? If so, how does this effect decision-making? Through experimental manipulation, this study will inform the courts about the effects of religious symbols in the courtroom and the role of perspective taking in inhibiting heuristic thinking and biased actions. METHOD Participants 133 participants (50 men and 83 women) were recruited from Amherst College and a local Amherst coffee shop. People participated in the study in exchange for course credit or $5 compensation. Only six participants from the coffee shop were included, and therefore separate tests were not run between the Amherst College and Amherst community participant groups. Materials Participants received one of six packets containing general instructions, a case summary, judge’s instructions, and a brief questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed to measure the participants’ levels of religious devotion and affiliation to their respective religious group, ingroup and outgroup biases, levels of rational or experiential thinking, and their use or nonuse of perspective taking during the trial. All groups were given the same judge’s instructions and questionnaire. Half of the groups were instructed to take the perspective of the defendant through an additional paragraph, while the other half was not. Additionally, 1/3rd of the participants received a trial P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 55 summary with a Christian defendant, 1/3rd received a Sikh defendant, and the last 1/3rd received a control defendant where no religious affiliation or symbols were mentioned. Trial summary. The written trial summary described the penalty phase of a man convicted on charges of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree assault. The summary was approximately 560 words long. It was based loosely on the case against Jose Santos who was sentenced 10 to 20 years in prison on December 20, 1995 for beating and raping his estranged wife.54 The crime was manipulated through the inclusion of alleged spying by the husband, with mention of the husband’s tattoo. It was also altered by the name and religion of the defendant as well as the swearing in procedure. In a third of the packets, the trial highlighted a defendant of Christian beliefs. The trial began with the defendant swearing in on a Bible, reciting, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Additionally, mention of the defendant’s tattoo of a Cross was present in the case summary. This defendant’s name was Paul Matthews. Another third highlighted a defendant of Sikh beliefs. The trial began with the defendant swearing in on the Guru Granth Sahib reciting, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Additionally, mention of the defendant’s tattoo of an Ek-Onkar was present in the case summary. The defendant’s name was Talib Rajpal. Lastly, the final third was the control condition. The defendant swore in by putting his hand over his heart, reciting, “I swear to tell the truth, 54 See e.g., (1995, December, 21). Man Gets 10-to-20-Year Term for Raping Wife. The New York Times, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE4D81439F932A15751C1A963958260&n=Top%2FR eference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FV%2FViolence; James, G. (1995, December, 6). Man Found Guilty of Raping His Wife. The New York Times, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res= 9403E7D81E39F935A35751C1A963958260&sec=&spon=. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 56 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A tattoo was mentioned without specification of its content or image. The defendant’s name was Robert Johnson. In half of these conditions, participants were instructed to take the perspective of the defendant by including a paragraph that read, “Knowing the importance of understanding others, go through the trial as if you were the defendant, walking through the world in his shoes and looking at the world through his eyes. Know that there are two sides to every question; try to look at them both. Try to imagine how you would feel if you were in the defendant’s place.” Instructions and verdict form. Participants were instructed to indicate a verdict of guilty or not guilty for an additional charge of aggravated sexual abuse and to give a recommended sentence for the defendant. The guidelines for the conviction of aggravated sexual abuse were supplied from “Report to Congress: Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases,” (1993) and was integrated into the judge’s instructions. Participants were informed that if found guilty, the defendant was eligible for up to a maximum of life sentence. Participants were also informed that the crimes the defendant had already been convicted of were eligible for a minimum of 4 ½ to 9 years and a maximum of 12 ½ to 25 years in prison. Participants were then told to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, supplying a minimum and maximum sentence along with a recommended sentence for the defendant. Dependant and independant measures survey. The dependent measure survey contained measures of the participant’s sentencing decision, confidence in one’s decision, what influenced the participant’s decision, a participant’s level of religious identification, a devotionalism measure, the Rational-Experiential Inventory, a perspective taking P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 57 measure (Interpersonal Reactivity Index), and CEST measures. For more details please see Appendix B. Interpersonal reactivity index (IRI). Perspective taking was utilized in the following study to curtail stereotypes and biases, in hopes that those who employed perspective taking would report higher levels of rational processing and evaluate the defendant in an unbiased and logical manner. In order to accurately measure perspective taking, this study employed a section of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980; 1983), a scale that consists of 4 components: the perspective taking scale, the empathetic concern scale, personal distress, and the fantasy scale. Only questions regarding perspective taking were scored. The questions measured a particpant’s tendency to adopt the psychological point of view of others in everyday life, with statements such as, "I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective." Participants rated each question on a 5-point scale from does not describe me well to describes me very well. This scale was used to measure if and how much the participant tried to take the perspective of the defendant. The use of perspective taking, the active imagination of how an individual feels or is affected by his/her situation, frequently produces an empathetic arousal that leads to altruistic behavior (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Batson, 1991).55 Perspective taking affects the attribution and evaluation of others, as perspective takers evaluate a situation as if they themselves were in it (Jones & Nisbett, 1971). It has been shown that perspective taking leads to the merging of the self and the other and an increased cognitive accessibility of the self-concept (Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996). Just as 55 Davis (1983) found that perspective taking was positively correlated with social competence as well as selfesteem, which may also improve one’s positive and helpful behavior. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 58 the positive self-evaluation is related to the ingroup, the increased self-other overlap caused by perspective taking could lead to more positive evaluations of the outgroup target (e.g., a defendant), diminishing the accessibility and application of stereotypes (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). In fact, a study by Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) found that perspective taking reduced evidence of ingroup bias by increasing evaluations of the outgroup. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) suggested perspective taking as an effective strategy for debiasing social thought.56 Rational-experiential inventory (REI). The Rational-Experiential Inventory was administered to investigate the role of thought processes (rational versus experiential) in relation to perspective taking instructions and religious symbols. Based on CognitiveExperiential Self-Theory (CEST), as discussed in the previous chapter, REI was constructed to measure two independent processing modes: analytic-rational and intuitive-experiential. The REI consists of two parts: the Need for Cognition Scale (NFC)57 and Faith in Intuition (FI) Scale,58 which were created to measure personality, adjustment, achievement and interpersonal relations through thinking processes and intuition levels (Epstein et al., 1996).59 A 5-item NFC scale was used in this study, which reports the extent to which individuals enjoy and engage in, or dislike and avoid, cognitive activities (Epstein et al., 1996). Providing the assessment of intuitiveexperiential thinking, Epstein et al. (1996) developed the Faith in Intuition scale, 56 A similar study was also conducted by Vescio et al. (2003), which found that perspective taking promoted improved ingroup attitudes irrespective of stereotypicality. 57 Originally created by Cacioppo & Petty (1982) 58 Jung (1964/1968) proposed that thinking and intuition are among the most basic ways of interpreting information. 59 Cacioppo and Petty (1982) showed that one’s score on the Need for Cognition scale measures analyticrational processing by indicating levels of heuristic thinking, associated with impression formation and people’s receptivity to new information. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 59 measuring engagement and confidence in one’s intuitive abilities. A 5-item FI scale was used in this study, which refers to having confidence in one’s feelings and immediate impressions as a basis for decisions and actions (Epstein et al., 1996).60 Respondents rated all items of the NFC and FI scales on a 5-point scale ranging from completely false to completely true. CEST Vignettes. In addition to the self-report scales, Epstein et al. (1996) created heuristic vignettes to provide an alternate index of individual differences in rational and experiential thinking. These vignettes act as a non-self-report measure from which responses can be scored objectively as heuristic or rational. The vignettes depict situations that require judgments about the degree of distress following arbitrary outcomes or cost-benefit effects. On the basis of CEST, Epstein et al. (1996) correlated heuristic responses with intuitive-experiential processing (as heuristics are the natural mode of the experiential system). In conducting the vignettes, respondents are asked how they themselves would respond (self perspective) and how a completely rational person would respond (logical perspective) in the situations provided.61 These responses allow participants to express their understanding of the rational response, even if they do not believe it reflects common behaviors, and to demonstrate their awareness of the two modes of thinking. If participants are aware of both modes (rational and experiential), it is believed they can alter responses appropriately when asked to make judgments from the different mode of thinking (Epstein et al., 1996), mirroring a judge asking a juror to think logically and impartially. This also allows one to determine whether a participant is 60 Although the original NFC was 45 items then 19 items and FI was 12 items, Epstein et al. (1996) found the shortened REI was sufficiently reliable and independent. 61 This procedure has been used successfully in previous research, demonstrating the differences between rational and experiential thinking (Epstein, 1994; Epstein et al., 1992; Kirkpatrick & Epstein, 1992). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 60 generally experiential or if they are thinking experientially due to the case before them.62 In the following study, participants were scored by their answers regarding how a rational person would respond to the given vignettes, as it indicates a participant’s ability to think rationally and awareness of the rational response. One point was given for each vignette, either to one’s experiential or rational score. Therefore, participants were rated either 3:0, 2:1 rational or 1:2, 0:3 experiential. (For vignettes, see Appendix C). Procedure After participants read and signed an informed consent form, they were reminded that they could terminate the experiment at any time. The experimenter then explained the procedure, informed participants that they were to act as mock jurors at a trial, read through all of the information carefully, and answer each question. After handing in the packet, participants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and then dismissed. HYPOTHESES Perspective Taking Due to the debiasing effects of perspective taking, it was hypothesized that perspective taking instructions would lower sentences in all three conditions. It was expected that sentences would drop most significantly in the Sikh condition due to decrease in outgroup bias (as no Sikhs are expected to be in the participant pool). It was also hypothesized that those in perspective taking conditions would report higher levels of rational thinking and lower experiential thinking due to a decrease in ingroup/outgroup 62 As Epstein et al. (1996) writes, “[the vignettes] provide an objective index of the ability to distinguish between heuristic and logical thinking” (p. 393). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 61 biases. A such, it was expected that perspective taking would lower the expression of biases in all three conditions, though more substantially in the religious conditions due to increased levels of bias caused by religious symbols. Contrarily, those who did not receive perspective taking instructions were expected to report higher experiential thinking and rely more heavily on personal biases, basing decisions on feelings about the case and defendant as well as their instincts about the case. Furthermore, perspective taking was expected to positively correlate not only with rational thinking, but also how participants came to their respective decisions. Reliance on one’s religious beliefs, instincts, and feelings were considered experiential factors. Reliance on judge’s instructions, logic and reason and evidence provided in the case were viewed as rational factors. Hypothesis 1a. PT will reduce sentences and conviction rates in all three conditions Hypothesis 1b. Sentences will drop most significantly in the Sikh condition due to reduced outgroup biases Hypothesis 2. PT will decrease experiential thinking and increase rational thinking Hypothesis 3a. Rational thinking will lower sentencing and correlate with participants being influenced by judge’s instructions, logic and reason, and evidence provided within the case Hypothesis 3b. Experiential thinking will raise sentences and correlate with participants being influenced by personal feelings, intuition, and religion. Religious Condition Sentences and conviction rates were expected to be higher in the Sikh condition due to ingroup/outgroup biases. Because of ingroup/outgroup biases and the larger number of ingroup members expected in the Christian condition than the Sikh condition, it was hypothesized that the Christian defendant would receive lower sentences than the Sikh or control defendants. This expectation was based on the similarity-leniency P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 62 hypothesis. Additionally, it was expected that lower ingroup sentences would be most pronounced when only looking at Christian participants, as it isolates the ingroup. Additionally, participants in the Christian and Sikh conditions were expected to process more experientially than participants in the control condition due to the presence of religious symbols and the salience of religion. These participants were also expected to rely more heavily on intuitive-experiential factors rather than analytical-rational factors when making sentencing decisions. Due to previous findings that emotional content (including religious material) sparks experiential thinking, it was also anticipated that those who rated themselves with high Religious Identification and Devotionalism would be more likely to utilize experiential thinking when making sentencing decisions, especially when religion was salient. Hypothesis 4. Participants in the Christian and Sikh conditions will process more experientially due to the presence of religious symbols. Hypothesis 5a. Sentences and conviction rates will to be higher in the Sikh condition and lower in the Christian due to ingroup/outgroup biases. Hypothesis 5b. These differences in sentencing and conviction rates will be exaggerated in the all-Christian group to due increased ingroup concentration. Hypothesis 6. Those high in Religious Identification and Devotionalism will be more likely to think experientially. RESULTS General The overall sample size included 133 participants (38% males) with ages ranging from 18 to 64 (with a mean age of 20.9 years old). Participants who did not provide a recommended sentence, or who provided a range for recommended sentence, were not used in sentencing data but were included in the overall data (N=5). One participant who P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 63 suggested life was entered at 70 years to match the next highest sentence recommendation. 59 participants (44%) were Christians, 14 (10.5%) were Jewish, one (0.7%) was Hindu, four (3%) were Buddhist, one (0.7%) was Muslim, 16 (12%) were Atheists, 16 (12%) were Agnostics, 14 (10.5%) indicated that they believed in God but had no particular faith, and two (1.5%) indicated that their faith was “other” than those listed (one Quaker and one Celtic Pagan). Each cell had an average of 22.16 participants, with cell sizes ranging from 22 to 23 participants. Results were also examined in a sample of Christian-only participants (N=59). Two participants in this group failed to provide valid sentence recommendations, putting the sample size at 57 for tests regarding sentences. Each cell had an average of 9.8 participants, will cell sizes ranging from 6 to 13 participants. Comprehension Check One false option was added to questionnaires to ensure participants’ close attention to the case summary. When participants were asked to rate what influenced their sentencing decisions, the false option read: “Evidence that the husband tried to break his wife’s arm.” No such evidence was provided in the case summary, yet 68 participants (51%) marked that this evidence influenced their decision. Only 15 (11%) participants marked that this did not influence them at all. These data may indicate low levels of thorough comprehension and attention in the participant pool during the conduction of this study, though ample significant data was found. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 64 Effects of Perspective Taking Perspective taking instructions. It was found that perspective taking (PT) instructions were effective in all three conditions (F (1,127) =4.81, p<.05) (N=133), causing higher scores on the perspective taking scale in each PT condition. Sum of Perspective Taking in PT and No-PT Conditions (N=133) Condition No PT With PT Instructions Instructions 28.23 30.32 Control (4.49) (4.82) 28.23 30.55 Christian (5.69) (4.26) 27.78 29.00 Sikh (4.11) (5.91) Table 2: Sum of Perspective Taking with & without Perspective Taking instructions When examining only Christian participants (N=59), perspective taking instructions were calculated as slightly less effective, though still significant in raising one’s level of perspective taking (F (1, 53) =3.48, p<.10), partially caused by the fact that perspective taking scales were higher in the Sikh condition when no perspective taking instructions were given (M=28.38, SD=3.45) than when instructions were present (M=26.22, SD=5.97). Sum of Perspective Taking in PT and No-PT Conditions for all Christian Participants (N=59) Condition No PT With PT Instructions Instructions 27.67 31.45 Control (3.82) (6.24) 25.13 30.67 Christian (4.61) (3.72) 28.38 26.22 Sikh (3.45) (5.97) Table 2: Sum of Perspective Taking with & without Perspective Taking instructions for all Christian participants P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 65 These results are slightly peculiar, indicating that Christian participants had lower levels of PT in the Sikh condition when given PT instructions than when not given instructions to take the perspective of the defendant. These results may reflect reluctance to take the perspective of an outgroup member, but the implications of such data are debatable. Most important to recognize is the overall significant effect of the perspective taking instructions in the general participant pool as well as the Christian-only pool. Sentencing. Recall the study by Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000), which determined that perspective taking decreases ingroup/outgroup biases and often leads to more positive evaluations of the target. As such, it was expected that the presence of perspective taking instructions would decrease the average recommended sentence and conviction rates in all three conditions. To investigate this expectation, a 3x2 ANOVA was run with between subjects factors of religious conditions and perspective taking. Supporting hypothesis 1a, perspective taking instructions lowered sentences in all three conditions (F (1,122) =2.94, p< .10), with the average recommended sentence within perspective taking conditions reported at 17.28 years (SD=1.57), in contrast to the average recommended sentence of 21.07 years reported without perspective taking (SD=1.57) (See Figure 1). This was the main effect of the perspective taking instructions. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 66 Recommended Sentences: All Participants (N=128) 25 Sentence (Years) 20 15 21.6 20.84 20.79 17.05 18.02 10 5 0 Figure 1: Recommended Sentences with & without Perspective Taking instructions for all participants. Additionally, convictions of aggravated sexual abuse were consistently lower when instructions for perspective taking were present, running an average 53% conviction rate in perspective taking conditions, as opposed to 65.5% without PT, though these data were not found to be significant through a chi square test, indicating x² (2, N=133) = 1.539, p> .05, as seen in Table 3. These data reflect expected findings and demonstrate the altruistic effects of perspective taking, resulting in lower sentences and conviction rates. These data also point to existing juror biases. Because perspective taking lowers bias, its effect demonstrates the prior existence of bias. Rates of Conviction for Aggravated Sexual Abuse: All Participants (N=133) Control Christian Sikh No Perspective Taking 59.1% 63.6% 73.9% Perspective Taking 54.5% 54.5% 50% Table 3: Percent of guilty verdicts for aggravated sexual abuse in conditions with & without Perspective Taking P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 67 Also important to note is the significantly higher tendency to convict the Sikh defendant over the Christian and control defendants in the non-PT conditions. These data support hypothesis 1b, reflecting outgroup punitiveness. According to the data, the Sikh defendant had a 10.3% higher rate of conviction than the Christian defendant, and a 14.8% higher rate than the control defendant. Observing the power of perspective taking, the discrepancies in conviction rates were greatly reduced and altered in the perspective taking conditions, with the Sikh defendant’s rate of conviction becoming the lowest of all three conditions. The same pattern in conviction rates was observed in the Christian-only data as well (see Table 4), with an even larger discrepancy between conviction rates in each condition. There, the conviction rates of the Sikh defendant dropped to 33.3%. Interestingly, rates for the Christian defendant did not reflect the same pattern as the control and Sikh conditions, with the percent of guilty verdicts with PT jumping to 80% (see Table 4). These results indicate that Christian participants were more likely to convict the Christian defendant when perspective taking was present than not (MnoPT=62.5%; MPT=80%). These conviction rates are in direct opposition to the pattern observed in the control (MnoPT=54.5%; MPT=54.5%) and Sikh conditions (MnoPT=83.3%; MPT=33.3%). These results were found to be significant through a chi square test x² (2, N=56) = 20.88, p< .0001. Rates of Conviction for Aggravated Sexual Abuse: Only Christian Participants (N=59) Control Christian Sikh No Perspective Taking 54.5% 62.5% 83.3% Perspective Taking 54.5% 80% 33.3% Table 4: Percent of guilty verdicts for aggravated sexual abuse in conditions with & without Perspective Taking; Only Christian participants. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 68 All-Christian participant sentencing followed the same pattern, not reflecting the same sentencing results as the general participant pool (See Figure 2). Like the general participant pool, higher sentences were recommended when perspective taking instructions were absent in the control condition (MnoPT=24.68, SDnoPT=17.14; MPT=14.82, SDPT=7.44) and Sikh condition (MnoPT=23.92, SDnoPT=11.01; MPT=14.89, SDPT=7.11). But within the Christian condition, higher sentences were suggested in the perspective taking condition (MnoPT=15.75, SDnoPT=7.09; MPT=28.33, SDPT=21.6). By completing a 3x2 univariate ANOVA between perspective taking and religious conditions, these data were found to be significant (F (2, 51) =4.067, p<.05). Recommended Sentences: Christian Participants Only (N=57) 30 28.33 Sentence (Years) 25 20 24.68 23.92 15 14.82 15.75 10 5 0 Figure 2: Recommended Sentences from Christian participants with & without Perspective Taking instructions These results may indicate several things. It appears as though ingroup perspective taking increased the negative evaluation of the target, pointing to the black sheep effect and directly contradicting hypotheses of increased altruism (e.g., Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). This may have occurred due to participants’ increased identification with the P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 69 target and cognitive accessibility of the self-concept, escalating the sense of deviance performed by the defendant (Davis et al., 1996). These results are in line with the Social Identity Theory, supporting the rejection of the deviant ingroup member. Clearly, perspective taking instructions influenced participants, affecting their evaluation of the defendant and altering their sentencing decisions. Additionally, the religious symbols within the case influence participants, as they altered reactions to the perspective taking instructions; while PT instructions in the control and Sikh conditions generated the expected altruistic reactions within Christian participants, knowledge of the Christian defendant’s ingroup status affected Christian participants’ reactions to placing themselves in the shoes of the defendant. Recognizing the small participant pool in the Christian condition (N=14), and due to the significant effects of the independent variables, further research should be conducted to explain these findings, looking into the effects of perspective taking on ingroup and outgroup biases. These results may reflect an additional danger in supplying jurors with knowledge of the defendant’s religious affiliation, sparking ingroup biases that directly affect a defendant’s likelihood of conviction. Rational-experiential processing. It was hypothesized that instructions of perspective taking would decrease levels of intuitive-experiential thinking and increase levels of analytical-rational thinking. A univariate ANOVA evaluating the effects of perspective taking and religious conditions on REI scales indicated no significant effect of perspective taking on intuitive-experiential thinking (F (1,127)=.004, p>.05) or analytical-rational thinking (F (1,127)=2.31, p>.05), not giving support to hypothesis 2. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 70 Similarly, the CEST measures did not indicate any effect of perspective taking on heuristic (F (1,127) =1.45, p>.05) or logical thinking (F (1,127) =1.45, p>.05). Likewise, in the all-Christian participant group, perspective taking did not have a significant effect on analytical-rational (F (1, 53) =.019, p>.05) or intuitive-experiential (F (1, 53) =.004, p>.05) processes as measured by the REI scale. But, when measured by the CEST vignettes, data indicated that perspective taking significantly increased logical thinking (F (1, 53) =3.14, p<.05) and decreased heuristic thinking (F (1, 53) =3.14, p<.05), as hypothesized (See Tables 5a & 5b). Note that PT had the strongest effects on rational/experiential thinking when religion was present, pointing to an effect of the religious material on participant thought processes. CEST Vignette Data Mean Heuristic Condition No Perspective Taking Control Christian Sikh 1.50 (1.08) 1.13 (0.99) 1.77 (1.09) Perspective Taking 1.45 (0.93) .67 (1.03) .78 (1.09) Table 5a: CEST Vignettes, Heuristic Means data of only Christian participants Mean Logical Condition No Perspective Taking Control Christian Sikh 1.50 (1.08) 1.88 (0.99) 1.23 (1.09) Perspective Taking 1.55 (0.93) 2.33 (1.03) 2.22 (1.09) Table 5b: CEST Vignettes, Logical Means data of only Christian participants P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 71 Perspective taking, rational-experiential thinking and sentencing decisions. Significant positive correlations were found between the sum of perspective taking and rational thinking, r (131) =.179, p<.05. Additionally, negative correlations were found between PT and reliance on one’s instincts to make the sentencing decision, r(131)=-.174, p<.05, as well as basing one’s sentencing decision on personal religious beliefs, r(131)=-.194, p<.05, both experiential factors, all supporting hypothesis 3a. Reliance on instincts correlated with the sum of one’s Religious Identification, r (131) =.191, p<.05 and strongly correlated with experiential thinking, r (131) =.330, p<.01. All of these correlations point to a negative relationship between perspective taking and experiential processing and a positive correlation between perspective taking and rational processes. These data show that the more participants utilized perspective taking, the more they used rational thinking. It also indicates participants’ greater reliance on instincts and religion when perspective taking was not being employed. Rational-experiential thinking and sentencing in relation to perspective taking. Several analysis indicated that intuitive-experiential thinking, as reported by REI, positively correlated with basing one’s sentencing decision on “feelings about this case,” r(131)=.178, p<.05, “instincts about this case,” r(131)=.33, p<.01, and “feelings about the defendant,” r(131)=.177, p<.05. There were no correlations between judge’s instructions, logic and reason, or any evidence presented in the case, in line with hypothesis 3b. These data did not reflect significant correlations between rational thought and what influenced participant’s sentencing decisions, except for a negative correlation between “evidence that the couple had been estranged,” which may be argued as a logical or emotional piece of evidence (r(1, 131)=-.177, p<.05). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 72 These data help support the argument that if PT instructions are applied within courts, jury members’ decisions will be influenced more by the information provided from the courts rather than personal and emotional reactions. Religious identification and devotionalism. Along similar lines, data from the control condition showed lower levels of Religious Identification as well as Devotionalism in the perspective taking conditions. Religious Identification in the control group without perspective taking instructions had an average Religious ID of 16.05 (SD=7.386), while with perspective taking the number dropped to an average of 12.57 (SD=6.169). Mirroring this pattern, levels of Devotionalism in the control condition without PT averaged at 38.86 (SD=12.616), and with PT at 32.05 (SD=12.28). These data indicate the power of perspective taking in reducing one’s reliance on religious beliefs. Interesting to note is the perspective taking instruction’s lack of effect in the conditions containing religious symbols (Sikh and Christian). Within these conditions, levels of RI and Devotionalism appeared to be insignificantly altered by the presence of perspective taking, with levels barely shifting. These data may be used to further support the use of perspective taking instructions as well as the need to expel religious symbols from courtrooms. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 73 Religious Identification: All Participants (N=127) 18 Religious Identification 16 14 16.05 13.86 12 14.86 12.57 10 11.68 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 3: Religious Identification of all participants with & without Perspective Taking instructions Devotionalism: All Participants (N=133) 45 Devotionalism 40 35 30 38.86 38.09 38.18 32.05 32.61 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 4: Devotionalism of allControl participants with & without Perspective Taking instructions Christian Sikh P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 74 Effects of Religious Conditions Rational-experiential thinking. It was hypothesized that the presence of religious symbols would increase levels of intuitive-experiential thinking in participants. Interestingly, data indicated the opposite effect, going against hypothesis 4. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of religious material on REI, combining the Christian and Sikh conditions. Contrary to expectations, it was found that religion had a significant positive effect on analytical-rational thinking (F (1, 131) =6.059, p<.05) with the highest levels of rationality reported within conditions with religious material (M=20.76, SD=2.82), over the control condition (M=19.41, SD=3.3). Furthermore, when all three conditions were considered separately, it was found that religious material had a positive effect on analytical-rational thinking (F (2,127) =3.4, p<.05). A Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that the highest levels of rationality were recorded in the Christian condition, with a difference of 1.64 (significance of p<.05) between the Christian condition and control condition. These results directly contradict expected results. Additionally, religion was found to have no significant effect on intuitiveexperiential processes as measured by REI when religious conditions (Christian and Sikh) were considered together (F (1,131) =.044, p>.05) or apart (F (2,127) =1.13, p>.05). No effect was found in the CEST vignette measures either, showing no effect of religious condition on logical or heuristic processing (F (2,127) =.805, p>.05). Sum of Perspective Taking. Religious condition (Control, Christian, or Sikh) was not expected to significantly affect levels of perspective taking, and analysis P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 75 confirmed this prediction (F (2, 130) =.553, p>.05). Means and standard deviations of the three groups were recorded as follows: (MControl=29.27, SDControl=4.727; MChristian=29.39, SDChristian=5.109; MSikh=28.38, SDSikh=5.051). Sentencing. Based on our understanding of ingroup favoritism, it was expected that sentences in the Christian condition would be lower than the Sikh and control conditions (as there are far more Christians in the participant pool than Sikhs). Additionally, the Sikh condition was projected to have higher sentences due to outgroup punitiveness. Results did not reflect the anticipated pattern, going against hypothesis 5a. The control condition’s average sentence was calculated at 18.92 years (SD=11.7), the Christian condition at 19.43 years (SD=14.58) and the Sikh condition at an average of 19.18 years (SD=10.87). These data were not found to be significantly different from one another (F (2, 122) =.018, p>.05), showing no effect of religious condition on average sentencing. Sentencing was also examined in the all-Christian participant group (N=57). Contrary to expectations, results did not indicate ingroup favoritism, going against hypothesis 5b. Again, it was expected that the presence of religious symbols would result in higher sentences for the outgroup member (Sikh) and lower for the ingroup member (Christian). Yet, it was found that the highest sentence of 21.14 years was reported in the Christian condition (SD=17.76). Second lowest was the Sikh condition with a recommended average sentence of 20.05 years (SD=10.39) and the lowest sentence in the control conditions averaged 19.75 years (SD=13.84). However, these findings were not statistically significant (F (2, 51) =.206, p> .05). These data may be the result of the black sheep effect, as Christians received the highest P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 76 recommended sentence. Still, the reasons for this change in average sentencing are unclear. Moreover, it must be noted that these sentences are an average of PT and no-PT conditions. Recall Figures 1 & 2 for sentencing between PT and no-PT conditions. Factors that influenced the sentencing decisions. Factors found to correlate with recommended sentences were one’s reliance on “personal feelings about rape” (r (126) =.235, p<.01) and certainty in sentencing decision (r (126) =.336, p<.01); the more certain someone was, the higher the sentence and the stronger their feelings about rape in general. Most importantly, basing one’s decision on “personal feelings about rape” strongly correlated with basing one’s decision on “feelings about the defendant,” r (131) =.355, p<.01, “instincts about this case” r (131) =.252, p<.01, “personal religious beliefs,” r (126) =.318, p<.01, and “feelings about this case,” r (131) =.406, p<.01. All of these reasons reflect heuristic, feeling-based thinking. None of these factors positively correlated with judge’s instructions (r (131)=-.07, p>.05) or several questions regarding evidence presented within the case summary, with the only exception found between personal feelings of rape and evidence that the defendant showed no regret, r(131)=.217, p<.05. These correlations suggest that those who proposed higher sentences were also processing experientially. For a full chart of correlations see Appendix D.63 Reported levels of religious identification. It was found that a participant’s reported Religious Identification was significantly effected by the religious condition 63 Also important to note is sentencing’s negative correlation with “evidence that the couple had been estranged,” r (126) =-.265, p<.01), which may be considered intuitive-experiential or analytical-rational. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 77 of the study (F (2,121) =2.72, p<.10). A univariate ANOVA revealed the largest discrepancy in Religious Identification between the Christian (M=14.35, SD=1.06) and Sikh conditions (M=11.32, SD=1.05) (See Figure 5a). These results reflect a direct relationship between the way in which one perceives his/her own religious identity and the religious affiliation of the defendant before them. Most interesting in the reported RI is the significant drop in the Sikh condition. This change may be due to several factors, including higher rational thinking or the social desirability effect. It is also a possibility that these results are symptomatic of a problem with random assignment; it is possible that more religious participants happened to be assigned to the Christian condition. All participants (N=133) 20 15 14.31 14.36 10 11.33 5 0 Control Christian Sikh Religious Identification Figure 5a: Reported Religious Identification of all participants The discrepancies in Religious Identification between conditions were even more pronounced in the all-Christian participant pool (See Figure 5b). Religious conditions had a significant effect on one’s reported RI (F (2, 53) =4.32, p<.05), with a difference of 6.65 (p<.05) between the Christian and Sikh conditions, showing higher RI with a Christian defendant and lower RI with a Sikh defendant. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 78 Christian Participants (N=59) 20 15 18.29 16.39 10 11.64 5 0 Figure 5b: Reported Religious Identification of Christian participants These data indicate the substantial effects of the religious symbols within the trial summary on participant’s evaluations of their religious affiliation and identity. Christian participants reported far higher Religious Identification when the defendant of the trial was of Christian faith than when no religion was mentioned. Moreover, Christian participants’ evaluation of their Religious Identification significantly dropped with the Sikh defendant. Reasons for this are unclear, though higher rationality and social desirability effect may be argued. Religious identification and factors that influenced sentencing decisions. In the general participant pool it was found that RI negatively correlated with one’s level of analytical-rational thinking (as measured by REI),64 r (125) =-.179, p<.05, and positively correlated with a participant’s reliance on “instincts about the case” in making one’s sentencing decision (r (125) =.191, p<.05), supporting hypothesis 6. 64 Interestingly, RI was found to be positively correlated with being influenced by logic and reason, (r (131) =.193, p<.05). Previous research indicates that logic and reason should correlate with analytical-rational, not intuitive-experiential thought, but results of RI do not reflect this expectation (Epstein et al., 1996). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 79 Furthermore, reliance on one’s instincts in making the sentencing decision was correlated with intuitive-experiential thinking (as measured by the REI), r (131) =.330, p<.01, and several other feeling-based decisions, linking Religious Identification and experiential processing (see Appendix D for a full listing). This indicates higher levels of experiential thinking as well as reliance on feeling-based reasoning for sentencing decisions when levels of RI were higher. It should also be noted that Religious Identification significantly correlated with measures of Devotionalism (r (125) =.611, p<.01), linking the two measures. Additionally, all of these correlations were amplified when Atheist participants were removed. For a chart, please see Appendix E. Devotionalism. Religious conditions were found have a causal affect on one’s reported levels of Devotionalism (F (2, 127) =3.42, p<.05). Post hoc tests showed the largest discrepancy in reported Devotionalism between the Christian and Sikh conditions (6.58, p<.05) (See Figure 6a). As with Religious Identification, the all-Christian participant pool amplified these differences (F (2, 53) =3.65, p<.05), showing a discrepancy of 10.62 (p<.05) between the Christian and Sikh conditions (See Figure 6b). Again, these data suggest that the religion of the defendant in the trial influenced participants’ evaluations of their own religious devotionalism. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 80 All Participants 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 38.14 35.45 31.56 Control Christian Sikh Figure 6a: Reported Devotionalism of all participants Christian Participants 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 40.04 42.57 31.95 Control Christian Devotionalism Figure 6b: Reported Devotionalism of Christian participants Sikh P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s , a n d J u r y B i a s e s | 81 Devotionalism and factors that influenced sentencing decisions. In the general participant pool, levels of Devotionalism were found to be positively correlated with a participant’s reliance on “personal religious beliefs” when making sentencing decisions, r (131) =.217, p<.05. This correlation suggests that the higher levels of Devotionalism observed in the all-Christian participant group indicate increased reliance on religious beliefs when faced with a Christian defendant. Again, lower levels of Devotionalism in the Sikh condition, as compared to the control condition, raise several questions, such as whether or not participants were more rational in that condition, or whether they wanted to appear less biased. Gender When looking at gender, no significant differences were found between genders in regards to recommended sentence (F (1,126) =.016, p>.05) or guilt of aggravated sexual abuse, x² (1, N=133) = 0.21, p> .05. Females recorded higher scores of perspective taking, F (1, 131) =11.82, p<.05, indicating an elevated tendency for females to take the perspective of others. In regards to all other dependant variables, no significant differences were found between women and men: levels of devotionalism (F (1,131) =1.979, p>.05), religious identification (F (1,125) =.677, p>.05), rational processing through REI (F (1,131) =.035, p>.05), experiential processing through REI (F (1,131) =.004, p>.05), rational processing by CEST (F(1,131)=.072, p>.05) or experiential processing by CEST (F(1,131)=.072, p>.05). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 82 Gender Sentence Guilty PT Dev RI Rat. REI Exp. REI Rat. CEST Exp. CEST Male 17.94 (1.57) 18.57 (1.23) 54% 27.1 (0.68) 30.13 (0.53) 36.73 (1.71) 34.07 (1.33) 13.74 (.99) 12.98 (0.78) 20.36 (0.43) 20.31 (0.33) 16.33 (0.6) 16.44 (0.46) 1.76 (.89) 1.81 (1.03) 1.24 (.89) 1.19 (1.03) Female 62.7% Table 6: Gender Data DISCUSSION As hypothesized, perspective taking lowered sentences and correlated positively with rational thinking; data suggest that as participants employed perspective taking, rational thinking increased and sentences decreased. Interestingly, this implies present biases within the jury pool. Furthermore, REI measures did not report changes in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking from the presence of religious symbols. Yet, one’s level of Devotionalism and Religious Identification shifted depending on the study condition, with higher RI and Devotionalism scores in the Christian condition, and lower in the Sikh condition. Devotionalism was found to be positively correlated with reliance on one’s religious beliefs and experiential thinking and RI scores were strongly correlated with reliance on instincts, a characteristic of experiential thought. These data suggest that although REI measures did not directly reflect the impact of religious material, changes in thought processes occurred within the participant pool, depending upon the presence or absence of religious symbols. Furthermore, perspective taking was found to reduce levels of RI and Devotionalism in the control condition, but had no significant effects when religious symbols were present, even though the average sentence was reduced. As such, while PT was able to reduce bias and experiential thinking, other mental processes were not P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 83 affected by PT in the presence of religious symbols. These data provide strong support for the inclusion of perspective taking instructions and the erasure of religious symbols from the courts. Furthermore, several factors impact the decision-making process. This study alone measured attitudes towards oneself (in terms of religiosity and devotion), attitudes towards the defendant, and the impact of legal materials (e.g., judge’s instructions and evidence of the case) as well as extra legal materials (e.g., intuition, feelings, religion). Findings of this study highlight the complexity of decision-making and the ways in which the decision-making process may be altered. Most importantly, the impact of perspective taking on sentencing implies the presence of juror biases. As found in previous studies, the increased self-other overlap caused by perspective taking diminishes accessibility and application of ingroup and outgroup stereotypes, and as such is suggested as an effective strategy for debiasing social thought (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Vescio et al., 2003). Data showing the decrease in sentencing and increase in rational thought as a result of perspective taking support these earlier findings. Furthermore, the larger effects of perspective taking (lowering sentences by the most significant degree) in the Sikh condition, signify the presence of outgroup biases, curtailed by the presence of perspective taking. PT also had the greatest effect in Sikh conviction rates. As such, this study illustrates that religious symbols of a Guru Granth Sahib (book) and Ek-Onkar (tattoo) are enough to generate outgroup status of the defendant. Keep in mind that the way in which the Sikh defendant swore in was identical to the way in which the Christian defendant swore in, “I swear to P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 84 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God,” thus highlighting the impact of the symbols alone, regardless of the mention of God. Furthermore, data regarding Devotionalism and Religious Identification reflect the different modes of thinking utilized by jurors, changes in how jurors view themselves, and how jurors come to their respective decisions (e.g., relying on judge’s instructions, evidence, feelings, or intuitions). Uses of rational and experiential thinking shifted between religious conditions, as did levels of religiousness and devotion. These changes correlated with participant’s dependence on legal and extra legal materials when making their decisions. These fluctuations, changing in response to the religion of the defendant, show the instability caused by the presence of religious material in courts. Perspective Taking: Conclusions The results of this study exhibited the beneficial effects of perspective taking. Most importantly, perspective taking lowered sentences in all three conditions, illustrating the power of perspective taking in reducing biases. These claims were evidenced through perspective taking measures’ positive correlations with rational thought measures and negative correlations with religious influence and instincts. Furthermore, perspective taking’s impact in reducing levels of Devotionalism and Religious Identification in the control condition further demonstrated the power of perspective taking in inhibiting one’s reliance upon religion. (Interesting to note is the dampened effect of perspective taking on RI and Devotionalism in the two conditions containing religious symbols, though the final result (sentencing) did reflect reduced biases in lowered sentencing. These data point to the importance of using perspective P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 85 taking in the courtroom in an effort to reduce bias, but also to the importance of eliminating the presence of religious symbols within the courts. Without eradicating the presence of religious symbols, perspective taking instructions cannot have their full effect in decision-making. Although sentences were lowered, addressing how jurors come to their decisions is still relevant.) Due to perspective taking’s significant effect on rational and experiential thinking, as well as levels of religious identity and devotion, perspective taking affected what influenced juror decisions. Participants with higher levels of experiential thought were more influenced by feeling and intuition-based factors than evidence or judge’s instructions, whereas that those who utilized perspective taking and measured higher in rationality were influenced by judge’s instructions and logic, over heuristics. Furthermore, as observed in the Sikh sentencing condition, perspective taking counteracted outgroup biases by greatly reducing Sikh defendant’s sentence and conviction rates. Without perspective taking the Sikh defendant received a sentence of 21.6 years, the highest of all three conditions, and with perspective taking the sentence reduced to 16.76 years. As stated earlier, these data point to the grave importance of integrating perspective taking instructions into judge’s instructions. When jurors were advised to consider the perspective of the defendant, biases lowered and rational thinking increased. Both of these phenomena are essential to the proper functioning of the jury decision-making. Yet, adding perspective taking instructions to judge’s instructions is not the only necessary alteration. Evidence of Christians recommending higher sentences in the perspective taking conditions to Christian defendants presents a conflict. These data P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 86 indicate a hindering effect of perspective taking instructions, as it may increase the occurrence of the black sheep effect. As such, these data represent the dangers in supplying jurors with information regarding the defendant’s religious beliefs. These data also show that courts cannot simply integrate perspective taking into court instructions with the hopes that it will counteract any religious, racial, or class biases present within the court. Instead, religious content must be erased, as perspective taking can increase biases within ingroups. If a tattoo on a defendant is enough to spark the black sheep effect, this evidence provides substantial support for the erasure of all religious symbols and content within courts. Another conflict is observed in lower levels of PT within the Sikh condition (with the all-Christian participants group) when perspective taking instructions were given. Reasons for this result are unclear, and should be given more attention. These data may indicate one’s difficulty in taking the perspective of an outgroup member. Consequently, this too could help support the argument that religious content must never be given to reveal the religious affiliation of the defendant so as to reduce outgroup biases. Religious Conditions: Conclusions It was anticipated that religious conditions would affect the length of recommended sentences with higher sentences in the Sikh condition and lower in the Christian, and though the average sentence and rate of conviction without perspective taking was highest in the Sikh condition, data did not indicate a significant effect. Considering the evidence that several other decision-making factors shifted in response to the religious affiliation of the defendant, sentencing’s failure to reflect these changes may P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 87 be contributed to the lack of judgment standards provided and the large scale in which participants could recommend sentences (4 ½ years to life in prison). Providing participants with such an expansive scale allowed for innumerable interpretations of the appropriate sentence, thus compromising sentencing data. Furthermore, it was expected that religious content would produce intuitiveexperiential processing. Instead, results indicated that religious material had no effect on experiential thinking as measured by REI or CEST and instead showed increased levels of analytical-rational thinking. In fact, rational thinking was highest when the defendant was of the same religion as the participant. It is unclear why these results would occur. It is a possibility that the effects of religious material were not significant enough to be detected by rational-experiential measures. Yet, changes in experiential and rational thinking were illustrated in measures of Devotionalism and Religious Identification. The overall data regarding Devotionalism and RI reflected the anticipated obstructive effects of religious symbols on jury decisionmaking. First and foremost, the fluctuation in reported Devotionalism and Religious Identification highlights the effects of the religious symbols used in the trial summary, altering the way in which jurors judged themselves, depending upon the religion of the defendant before them. These changes alone indicate the dangers in supplying jurors with knowledge of the defendant’s religious affiliation. Furthermore, negative correlations between RI and rational processes, as well as Devotionalism’s correlation with experiential and religion-based decisions (e.g., instincts, feelings, religion, etc.), indicate the expected hindrances of religion on the jury decisionmaking process. These correlations, related to the elevated levels of Devotionalism and P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 88 RI reported in the all-Christian participant Christian condition, suggest that jurors rely more heavily on religion and think less rationally when the defendant is of one’s religious ingroup. These findings also suggest that the presence of religious symbols can change how jurors evaluate a case before them, increasing experiential thinking and reliance on feeling and instincts over evidence presented in a case. These findings are essential in understanding that religious material within courtrooms alters juror decision-making, compromising proper jury evaluations and verdicts. What remains less clear is the causation behind the lower Devotionalism and RI levels recorded in the Sikh condition. Two plausible explanations for these data are higher rational thinking (when faced with an outgroup member) and the social desirability effect. The social desirability effect, not giving honest answers in order to conform with societal norms, commonly takes place when respondents are asked their opinions on controversial issues, such as race and religion (e.g., Schuman & Converse, 1971; Kane &Macaulay, 1993).65 Amherst, Massachusetts, where this study was conducted, is a highly liberal area where “political correctness” is held in high esteem. Therefore, it appears likely that the pool of participants within this study would have the desire to appear less biased against an outgroup member by reducing their reported religious affiliation. In doing so, participants aim to reduce an image of outgroup prejudice, reflecting the social desirability effect. Also, evidence of shifting levels of Devotionalism and Religious Identification are not frequently reported, suggesting an effect of participant pool. And lastly, increased levels of rationality when faced with 65 As cited in Streb et al. (2008). P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 89 outgroup members is not an easily explained phenomenon, and is therefore an unlikely cause for the downward shifts in Devotionalism and Religious Identification observed. Limitations It should be noted that measures within this study may suffer from problems such as transparency of questions, weak attention, and the social desirability effect, as discussed earlier. One question was added to the questionnaire to check for adequate attention to details in the case study, which had participants mark whether they were influenced by evidence of an event that had not been included in the trial summary. As noted earlier, over half of the participants marked that the non-existent evidence influenced their sentencing decision. These data imply a lack of attention and understanding of the case summary by participants. Therefore, the answers in this study may have been overly influenced by prior attitudes and beliefs. As Giner-Sorolla et al. (2002) writes, “Prior attitudes and beliefs have been shown to influence legal decisions especially when under conditions of low ability to process information- such as high case complexity, cognitive load, or time pressure” (p. 508). The lack of accuracy in noting this evidence as not affecting one’s sentencing decisions indicates low cognitive load and understanding of the material. Evidence within this study should also be taken with a grain of salt due to low ecological validity. This study did not involve juror deliberations, limiting the interaction of jurors and the possibility of shifting judgments based on others’ opinions. Additionally, the materials of the study were typed out, not acted or filmed. This presentation of information decreases its feeling of importance. Similarly, the fact that P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 90 participants were not put in an actual court with a real defendant dampens the gravity of the participants’ decisions. Lastly, the issue of domestic abuse may be a limiting factor due to some religious teaching’s support of abuse, as well as participants’ emotional reactions to the topic. Spilka et al. (2003) note that several religious teachings condone abusive behavior as an acceptable form of punishment (de Jonge, 1995; Kroeger & Beck, 1996; Volcano Press, 1995). For example, several Biblical passages may be seen as condoning physical abuse by conveying messages such as the man is the head of the household. At the same time, religious institutions have commonly taken stances against domestic abuse (Volcano Press, 1995). Therefore, this study may be affected by whether or not one’s religious teachings condone or prohibit abuse. Similarly, the measures through the Rational-Experiential Inventory do not control for one’s emotional reaction to the issue of sexual and physical domestic abuse. While these statistics were read to represent one’s reaction to religious materials, it is likely that participants’ emotional states were altered by the content of abuse within the trial summary. Therefore, high levels of experiential thinking may have been read inaccurately as a reaction to religious symbols rather than content of abuse. Furthermore, this topic may have conjured up emotions for some participants while not affecting others. Also, while this same scene was depicted in each condition, there is the possibility of inaccurate random assignment. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 91 Suggestions for Future Research Considering the presence of several unexpected findings within this study, further research should be conducted. Specifically, it is important to gain a better understanding of ingroup biases and how they manifest in juror decision-making as well as verdicts. Also, one’s ability to take the perspective of outgroup members must be further investigated as well. Recommendations for the inclusion of perspective taking may not take place without further understanding of one’s ability to take the perspective of another while in a position of judgment. Additional studies should be run to validate and replicate the findings of this study. Further research should be conducted to verify the presence of juror biases and the power of perspective taking in negating such biases. Furthermore, the power of religious symbols over the decision-making process should be given more attention. Lastly, variations in case seriousness should be studied in order to gain a better understanding of the black sheep effect as well as similarity-leniency within religious groups, especially in a time of judgment. Implications for the Future Considering the findings that all three conviction rates dropped when perspective taking was added, and that perspective taking increased rational thought and reduced reliance on religious beliefs, perspective taking instructions must be added to jury instructions. Furthermore, as evidenced by the differences in sentencing and conviction rates between defendants when PT was not applied, ingroup and outgroup biases clearly influenced the decisions of participants. Simply knowing the religion of the defendant caused sentencing and conviction rates to fluctuate between conditions. As such, jury P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 92 biases cannot be ignored. Evidence from this study suggests that the inclusion of perspective taking instructions can greatly improve the impartiality of jury pools, the ideal in a time of judgment. Furthermore, again considering the findings such as sentence and conviction differences between defendants, as well as the possibility of the social desirability effect in response to the Sikh defendant’s religion and the black sheep effect within the Christian pool, simply adding perspective taking instructions will not solve the problem of bias within the courtroom. As such, religious symbols must be eradicated from United States courtrooms. If the presence of a simple religious sign such as the Bible or EkOnkar is enough to change how participants judge a defendant in a mock trial, one must assume that even more blatant religious symbols faced in real-life trials would be far more influential and emotionally significant. As cited by the Sixth Amendment, all citizens of the United States have the right to a trial with an impartial jury.66 The evidence of this study clearly exposes the biases held within jurors when religion of the defendant is known, as such compromising the adherence to the Sixth Amendment and the proper functioning of the United States jury processes. To sentence a defendant while relying on intuition over evidence goes directly against the purpose of the Sixth Amendment. With consideration given to these findings as well as United States law, changes must be made in our legal system to erase and prohibit any sign of religion within U.S. courtrooms. Without this change, jurors around the country will continue to 66“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”; U.S. Const., amend. VI. P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 93 be unfairly influenced by outside, personal factors, risking the validity and impartiality of the trial process.