Showing papers by "Phoebe C. Ellsworth published in 2000"
TL;DR: This article found that people also infer status from emotions: Angry and proud people are thought of as high status, whereas sad, guilty, and appreciative people are considered low status, and that these emotion stereotypes are due to differences in the inferred abilities of people in high and low positions.
Abstract: Three vignette studies examined stereotypes of the emotions associated with high-and low-status group members. In Study 1a, participants believed that in negative situations, high-status people feel more angry than sad or guilty and that low-status people feel more sad and guilty than angry. Study 1b showed that in response to positive outcomes, high-status people are expected to feel more pride and low-status people are expected to feel more appreciation. Study 2 showed that people also infer status from emotions: Angry and proud people are thought of as high status, whereas sad, guilty, and appreciative people are considered low status. The authors argue that these emotion stereotypes are due to differences in the inferred abilities of people in high and low positions. These perceptions lead to expectations about agency appraisals and emotions related to agency appraisals. In Study 3, the authors found support for this process by manipulating perceptions of skill and finding the same differences in emot...
363 citations
TL;DR: The authors compared the judgments of white and black mock jurors in interracial trials and found that whites are motivated to appear nonprejudiced when racial issues are salient; therefore, the race salience of a trial summary was manipulated and given to non-college students in Study 2.
Abstract: The present studies compare the judgments of White and Black mock jurors in interracial trials. In Study 1, the defendant’s race did not influence White college students’ decisions but Black students demonstrated ingroup/outgroup bias in their guilt ratings and attributions for the defendant’s behavior. The aversive nature of modern racism suggests that Whites are motivated to appear nonprejudiced when racial issues are salient; therefore, the race salience of a trial summary was manipulated and given to noncollege students in Study 2. Once again, the defendant’s race did not influence Whites when racial issues were salient. But in the non-race-salient version of the same interracial case, White mock jurors rated the Black defendant more guilty, aggressive, and violent than the White defendant. Black mock jurors demonstrated same-race leniency in both versions of the trial, suggesting that racial issues are generally salient in the minds of Black jurors in interracial cases with Black defendants.
264 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a variety of reforms are proposed, most of which are based on the social science perspective that the problem is not due to bad jurors but to unnecessary procedural obstacles to high-quality decision making.
Abstract: Laypersons, the media, and many legal scholars tend to attribute problems in the jury system to the dispositions of individual jurors and to recommend reforms in jury selection procedures and relaxation of the unanimity rule. Social scientists view problems as a consequence of the structure of the jurors' task and recommend reforms in trial procedures. Reforms recommended by both groups are reviewed and evaluated. After years of apathy, the legal system has proposed, and in some jurisdictions implemented, a variety of reforms, most of which are based on the social science perspective that the problem is not due to bad jurors but to unnecessary procedural obstacles to high-quality decision making. These reforms are described in the final section of the article.
31 citations