Five Factor Model Personality Traits, Jury Selection, and Case Outcomes in Criminal and Civil Cases

AuthorBeth Caillouet,William F. Chaplin,Marcus T. Boccaccini,John Clark
Published date01 May 2007
Date01 May 2007
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806297555
Subject MatterArticles
CJB297555.qxd FIVE FACTOR MODEL PERSONALITY
TRAITS, JURY SELECTION, AND CASE
OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES

JOHN CLARK
Troy University
MARCUS T. BOCCACCINI
BETH CAILLOUET
Sam Houston State University
WILLIAM F. CHAPLIN
St. John’s University
Actual venire members (N = 764) completed the Big Five Inventory before going through the jury selection process for 1 of
11 criminal or 17 civil trials. Jury selection decisions by attorneys were not associated with juror personality traits but were
associated with juror race and sex, especially in criminal cases. In the 17 juries that deliberated to a verdict (n = 285), high
levels of juror extraversion were associated with not guilty verdicts or verdicts for the defendant, especially in criminal cases.
Extraversion was also associated with being selected as a jury foreperson, and foreperson extraversion was associated with
longer jury deliberation times and perceived foreperson influence in criminal cases.
Keywords:
jury selection; personality; Big Five; Five Factor Model; extraversion
Although the relation between juror personality traits and juror decision making was a
primary focus of early jury research, contemporary jury research rarely examines per-
sonality traits. Findings from early juror personality studies identified mostly small effects,
which apparently led researchers to discontinue their examination of juror personality traits
in search of stronger predictors of juror and jury decisions (Greene et al., 2002). Most cur-
rent jury decision-making research focuses on how the information presented to jurors and
attitudes about legal issues impact their decisions, with little attention to juror personality
traits (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying, & Pryce, 2001; Levett, Danielsen, Bull Kovera, &
Cutler, 2005; Robbennolt, Groscup, & Penrod, 2006).
The near abandonment of juror personality traits as a line of jury research may have been
made prematurely. More recent research, based on contemporary conceptualizations of per-
sonality, has identified promising effects for juror personality traits, especially in the context
of deliberating juries. The current study builds upon this more recent research by examining
the relation between Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits, jury selection, and case
outcomes in deliberating juries from real criminal and civil cases.
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence about this article may be sent to Marcus T. Boccaccini, Psychology
Department
, Sam Houston State University, Box 2447, Huntsville, TX 77341; e-mail: boccaccini@
shsu.edu.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34 No. 5, May 2007 641-660
DOI: 10.1177/0093854806297555
© 2007 American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
641

642
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
OVERVIEW OF JUROR PERSONALITY RESEARCH
Although juror personality traits examined by early researchers included locus of control
(Phraes & Wilson, 1972; Sosis, 1974), belief in a just world (Gerbasi, Zuckerman, & Reis,
1977), and measures of socialization and empathy (Moran & Comfort, 1986), most early
jury research focused on Authoritarianism (Devine et al., 2001). Authoritarianism refers to
a personality style characterized by distrust and aggression toward out-group members and
a strict adherence to rules and dictates from sources of authority (see Narby, Cutler, &
Moran, 1993). Narby et al. conducted a meta-analysis of findings from 20 studies examin-
ing the relation between juror Authoritarianism and perceptions of defendant culpability in
criminal cases. The meta-analysis examined effects for both Traditional Authoritarianism,
the personality characteristic described previously, and Legal Authoritarianism, a set of atti-
tudes that are specific to the legal system (e.g., rights of the accused, the presumption of
innocence, and procedural safeguards). The meta-analysis revealed a modest overall associ-
ation between Authoritarianism and conviction proneness (r = .16), with effects being
smaller for Traditional Authoritarianism (r = .11) than for Legal Authoritarianism (r = .19).
Although several researchers have published comprehensive reviews of the current state
of knowledge concerning juror and jury decision making, none devote a significant amount
of space to juror personality traits (see Greene et al., 2002; Levett et al., 2005; Nietzel,
McCarthy, & Kern, 1999; Robbennolt et al., 2006). When these authors do review research
relating to juror characteristics, they tend to focus on legal and case-specific attitudes, which
are seen as leading to “somewhat more fruitful” predictions about juror decisions than per-
sonality traits (Greene et al., 2002, p. 228). An attitude refers to affect for or against a spe-
cific issue or concept (Mueller, 1986). A personality trait refers to a relatively stable pattern
of thought, emotion, and behavior that describes “how people act in general” (Funder,
2004, p. 109). Case-specific attitude research has shown that jurors’ attitudes toward the
death penalty (Nietzel, McCarthy, & Kern, 1999), insanity defense (Cutler, Moran, & Narby,
1992), legal system (Lecci & Myers, 2002), and civil litigation (Robbennolt et al., 2006) can
be modest predictors of their case-related decisions. The recent preference for attitude mea-
sures over personality measures in jury research is also consistent with Narby et al.’s find-
ing that Legal Authoritarianism (attitude) was a stronger predictor of conviction proneness
than Traditional Authoritarianism (personality).
We argue that the general consensus in the field that personality traits are of only minimal
value for understanding jury decision making is based on somewhat outdated juror personal-
ity research. One major limitation of the current state of juror personality research is that most
of the studies in this area were conducted before the emergence of the Five Factor Model
(FFM) of personality as a generally accepted framework for describing personality traits.
FIVE FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY
The FFM is a descriptive model of personality traits that identifies overarching domains of
personality based on groupings of words that people often use to describe themselves and oth-
ers (Costa & Widiger, 2002; John & Srivastava, 1999). One goal behind the development of
the FFM was to provide an accepted nomenclature for describing personality traits that would

Clark et al. / FIVE FACTOR MODEL PERSONALITY TRAITS
643
remove some of the confusion that occurred when similar traits were studied under different
names and different traits were studied under similar names (John & Srivastava, 1999). Thus,
the FFM offers a broad and comprehensive framework for describing normative personality
traits.
The traits that make up the FFM are usually identified as Openness to Experience,
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness (Costa & Widiger, 2002).
Openness to Experience concerns the extent to which individuals search for and desire to take
part in new experiences. Those who are high in Openness tend to be flexible in their ideas and
emotions, whereas those low in Openness have difficulty adapting to novel ideas or emotions.
Neuroticism refers to a person’s emotional stability and adjustment level, with higher levels
suggesting increasing emotional instability and distress. Extraversion distinguishes very active
and social people from those who are more subdued. Those scoring high on measures of
Extraversion prefer contact with others, enjoy a high level of activity, and tend to be happy.
Conscientiousness refers to the amount and quality of effort that individuals expend toward the
achievement of goals. Organization and hard work are trademarks of high Conscientiousness,
while laziness is a characteristic of low Conscientiousness. Agreeableness represents a
person’s tendency to be good-natured and cooperative. Those high in Agreeableness value rela-
tionships with others and show it; those low in Agreeableness tend to be more antagonistic.
The prominence of the FFM in recent personality research does not mean that personal-
ity traits studied in older jury research, such as Authoritarianism and Locus of Control, are
unimportant. What the FFM offers for jury decision-making research is a more broad and
comprehensive framework for understanding the association between personality traits and
juror decision making. Indeed, the FFM framework has “helped bring order” to other areas
of research examining the associations between personality traits, behavior, and outcomes
in people’s lives (see John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 125). The breadth of the FFM means that
most personality traits not specifically mentioned in the FFM framework can be described
in relation to the FFM. For example, Authoritarianism can be thought of as a combination
of low Openness to Experience and high Conscientiousness (Butler, 2000; Cockroft, 1996;
Heaven & Bucci, 2001).
FIVE FACTOR MODEL AND EXISTING JURY RESEARCH
Although the FFM has been used to examine the association between personality traits,
behavior, and outcomes in a wide variety of applied settings (e.g., job performance, health
outcomes, leadership), little is known about the association between these traits and jury
decision making. We have identified only one published study in which the FFM was used
to examine jury decision making. Marcus, Lyons, and Guyton (2000) administered a FFM
measure to members of eight deliberating juries from real criminal and civil cases. The 86
jurors also provided ratings of how much they believed they influenced other jurors and how
much they were...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT