'So Help Me God'? Does oath swearing in courtroom scenarios impact trial outcomes?
In countries such as Britain and the US, court witnesses must declare they will provide truthful evidence and are often compelled to publicly choose between religious ("oath") and secular ("affirmation") versions of this declaration. Might defendants who opt to swear an oath enjoy more favourable ou...
| Publicado en: | British Journal of Psychology Vol. 114; no. 4; pp. 991 - 1015 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Nov2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=172913771&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 172913771 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00071269 BJP jtl: British Journal of Psychology issn: 00071269 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Nov2023 vid: 114 iid: 4 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 172913771 10.1111/bjop.12651 ppf: 991 ppct: 24 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 544KB tig: atl: 'So Help Me God'? Does oath swearing in courtroom scenarios impact trial outcomes? aug: au: McKay, Ryan T. Gervais, Will Davis, Colin J. affil: Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK Centre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK su: Ethics Witnesses Honesty Prejudices Courts Decision making Psychosocial factors Legal procedure Jury Religion Jury ethics Research Audiovisual materials Research funding Case studies sug: subj: Ethics Witnesses Honesty Prejudices Courts Decision making Psychosocial factors Legal procedure Jury Religion Courts Jury ethics Research Audiovisual materials Research funding Case studies keyword: atheism legal processes morality prejudice religious beliefs atheism legal processes morality prejudice religious beliefs ab: In countries such as Britain and the US, court witnesses must declare they will provide truthful evidence and are often compelled to publicly choose between religious ("oath") and secular ("affirmation") versions of this declaration. Might defendants who opt to swear an oath enjoy more favourable outcomes than those who choose to affirm? Two preliminary, pre‐registered survey studies using minimal vignettes (Study 1, N = 443; Study 2, N = 913) indicated that people associate choice of the oath with credible testimony; and that participants, especially religious participants, discriminate against defendants who affirm. In a third, Registered Report study (Study 3, N = 1821), we used a more elaborate audiovisual mock trial paradigm to better estimate the real‐world influence of declaration choice. Participants were asked to render a verdict for a defendant who either swore or affirmed, and were themselves required to swear or affirm that they would try the defendant in good faith. Overall, the defendant was not considered guiltier when affirming rather than swearing, nor did mock‐juror belief in God moderate this effect. However, jurors who themselves swore an oath did discriminate against the affirming defendant. Exploratory analyses suggest this effect may be driven by authoritarianism, perhaps because high‐authoritarian jurors consider the oath the traditional (and therefore correct) declaration to choose. We discuss the real‐world implications of these findings and conclude the religious oath is an antiquated legal ritual that needs reform. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|