Attributions of Responsibility by Simulated Jurors: Stage of Moral Reasoning and Guilt by Association

Abstract

Simulated jurors (91 male and 116 female undergraduates) judged the guilt of and assigned the sentence for a defendant in an ambiguous murder case. Severity of crime and sentence decreased significantly with increasing stage of moral reasoning. The addition of evidence interpretable as guilt by association produced less severe guilt and sentence decisions at the preconventional and conventional stages. Results were discussed in light of numerous person-perception ratings of the victim and defendant.