The effect of information bias on the formation of impressions: Courtroom implications
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12020/2013ISSN: 2009-3829
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2016-0029
Autor/es
Gordillo, F.; Mestas, Lilia; Arana, José Manuel; Perez Nieto, Miguel Ángel; Scotto, Eduardo Alejandro; [et al.]Fecha
2017Tipo de documento
articleMateria/s Unesco
6106.04 Análisis Experimental de la Conducta6106.09 Procesos de Percepción
5699 Otras Especialidades Jurídicas
Resumen
Purpose – The ability to form impressions allows predicting future behaviour and assessing past conduct by
facilitating decision making in different contexts. Both verbal cues (what we know about someone) and
non-verbal cues (the emotion expressed) could modulate this process to a different degree. The purpose of
this paper is to analyse the relationship between these variables and their impact on the formation of
impressions within criminal proceedings.
Design/methodology/approach – An experiment was conducted that involved 142 Mexican students, who
evaluated emotional response (happiness, sadness, fear and anger) and personality (emotional stability, kindness, responsibility, sociability and creativity) through the facial expression of a Spanish child-murderer. Two groups were formed for comparative purposes, one of which was provided with information on the murderer (activated information (AI)), while the second group had no related information whatsoever (deactivated information (DI)).
Findings – The results recorded a higher score for happiness (p¼0.037, η2¼0.03) and anger (p¼0.001,
η2¼0.08), and a lower one for sadness (p¼0.002, η2¼0.06), fear (p¼0.002, η2¼0.07), emotional stability
(po0.001, η2¼0.09) responsibility (po0.001, η2¼0.10) and kindness (p¼0.01, η2¼0.05) in the AI condition
compared to the DI condition.
Originality/value – The formation of impressions is an adaptive process that may be affected by variables
that are complex and difficult to control, which within legal proceedings might bias court decisions and
compromise the objectivity required of the judiciary.




