Title:
Immigration status and juror decision making: impact of nationalism, authoritarianism, and immigration
Author:
Mateusz Golebiewski
Thesis Advisor:
Marianna E. Carlucci
Committee Member:
Carolyn M. Barry
Committee Member:
Francis Golom
Committee Member:
Stephen E. Fowl
Committee Member:
Michiko Iwasaki
Degree Granting Institution:
Loyola University Maryland--College of Arts and Sciences
Place:
Baltimore (Md.)
Publisher:
Loyola University Maryland
Date Created:
2018
Type of Resource:
text
Genre:
thesis
Language:
eng
Format:
application/pdf
Physical Form:
electronic
Digital Source:
born digital
Abstract:
All people are subject to implicit and explicit biases. As social norms shift over time, so might our biases. While social norms generally influence our explicit biases, we continue to hold implicit ones. These implicit beliefs may influence our thoughts and behaviors toward others. Despite the promise of a fair trial, jury research has repeatedly found that jurors possess implicit biases which are pervasive and difficult to shift (Larson, 2010). While tools such as voir dire are meant to limit the impact of bias on the juror sentencing process, the ability to do so is unclear. Juror research has found that biases regarding defendant race, sexual orientation, gender, or body type have been shown to influence objectivity and juror decision making; additionally, certain characteristics such as juror authoritarianism also contribute to bias. Anti-immigrant sentiment has increased globally in recent years. People view members of their in-group favorably, and the opposite is true for members of their out-group. How do these beliefs and biases influence the juror decision making process? The current study utilized a randomized controlled design to assess the potential impact of defendant immigration status as well as juror levels of authoritarianism and patriotism/nationalism on the juror decision making process. Demographics, standardized questionnaires (RLAQ-23, Nationalism/Patriotism Scale), case vignettes and a sentencing form assessed were used to assess sentence severity and length, requests for deportation, ratings of guilt, and confidence in verdict. Results revealed that, although not statistically significant, U.S. citizen defendants received the longest sentences. Additionally, ratings of guilt were not able to be assessed due to limited participant responses of “Not Guilty” across all conditions. Participant requests for deportation were highest for South American and Middle Eastern immigrant defendants. Levels of authoritarianism and patriotism/nationalism did not significantly influence sentencing. Finally, regarding sentence severity, second degree murder was the most common verdict across conditions. Findings were mixed regarding support for primary hypotheses, and suggest that further research is necessary to clarify the impact of immigration status on the juror decision making processes.
Degree:
Doctor of Clinical Psychology
Level:
Doctoral
Discipline:
Psychology
Restrictions on Access:
Author has given permission to make this work available online to Loyola Notre Dame Library basic constituency.
Use and Reproduction:
The authors of theses and dissertations are the copyright owners. Loyola Notre Dame Library has their permission to store and provide access to these works. Transmission or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Permission is required to use materials for which Loyola Notre Dame Library, Loyola University Maryland, or Notre Dame of Maryland University hold copyright. In addition, the reproduction of some materials may be restricted by terms of gift of purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and publicity rights, licensing and trademarks. Works not in the public domain cannot be commercially exploited without permission of the copyright owner. Responsibility for any use rests exclusively with the user.
Identifier:
GolebiewskiM-18