White mock jurors' moral emotional responses to viewing female victim photographs depend on the victim's race.

OBJECTIVE: Jurors often see both premortem photographs of female murder victims before death and postmortem photographs after death. Postmortem photographs are often probative but might prejudicially heighten jurors' other-condemning emotions, such as anger and disgust. Premortem photographs are often not probative and might prejudicially heighten jurors' other-suffering emotions, such as sympathy and empathy. We examined how victim race changes the impact of pre- and postmortem photographs on participants' moral emotions and, in turn, their verdicts. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that seeing postmortem (vs. no) photographs would increase convictions through other-condemning emotions for White, but not Latina or Black, victims. We also hypothesized that seeing both pre- and postmortem (vs. only postmortem) photographs would further increase convictions through other-suffering emotions, again for White, but not Latina or Black, female victims. METHOD: White participants (N = 1,261) watched a murder trial video. We manipulated the victim's race (White, Black, or Latina) and whether participants saw no victim photographs, premortem photographs of a female victim, postmortem photographs of a female victim, or both pre- and postmortem photographs. Participants reported the emotions they felt during the trial and chose a verdict. RESULTS: Seeing postmortem (vs. no) victim photographs increased White participants' guilty verdicts through other-condemning emotions when the female victim was White or Latina but not when she was Black. Seeing the combination of pre- and postmortem photographs increased White participants' convictions through other-suffering emotions when the victim was a White woman but not when she was Latina or Black. CONCLUSIONS: Attorneys and judges should consider that jurors' emotional reactions to victim photographs are felt selectively depending on the victim's race and could exacerbate racial biases in jurors' judgments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Can neuroimaging prove pain and suffering?: The influence of pain assessment techniques on legal judgments of physical versus emotional pain.

OBJECTIVES: It is difficult to "prove" pain and suffering-particularly emotional suffering. Neuroimaging technology might bolster pain claims in civil cases by making pain seem less subjective. We examined how neuroimaging of physical and emotional pain influences judgments of pain and suffering across nonlegal and legal contexts. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that participants would rate pain assessed using neuroimaging as more severe and award higher compensation than pain assessed using self-report measures. We also hypothesized that participants would rate physical (vs. emotional) pain as more severe, except when the pain claim was bolstered by a neuroimaging assessment. METHOD: In two experiments, we tested how pain assessment techniques influence perceptions of pain severity and monetary compensation differently for physical or emotional pain. Using a within-subjects design, participants (Experiment 1, N = 411, 59% male, 80% White) read 6 vignettes that described a person's chronic physical or emotional pain, evaluated using a clinical assessment, neuropsychological assessment, or neuroimaging assessment. We conceptually replicated Experiment 1 in a legal context (Experiment 2, N = 353, 42% male; 80% White) and tested whether the neuroimaging effect was due to knowing that the pain was assessed by neuroimaging or also required the inclusion of a neuroimage. RESULTS: When pain was assessed using neuroimaging (vs. non-neuroimaging assessments), participants rated the pain as more severe and gave larger monetary awards. When a person alleged physical (vs. emotional) pain, participants rated the pain as more severe and gave larger monetary awards. We conceptually replicated these findings in Experiment 2 and found that the neuroimaging effect was due to hearing about neuroimaging assessment and did not necessitate the inclusion of a neuroimage. CONCLUSION: Neuroimaging technology could be extremely useful for plaintiffs trying to overcome the difficult hurdle of proving their pain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).