The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making.
Much debate exists surrounding the applicability of genetic information in the courtroom, making the psychological processes underlying how people consider this information important to explore. This article addresses how people think about different kinds of causal explanations in legal decision-making contexts. Three studies involving a total of 600 Mechanical Turk and university participants found that genetic, versus environmental, explanations of criminal behavior lead people to view the applicability of various defense claims differently, perceive the perpetrator's mental state differently, and draw different causal attributions. Moreover, mediation and path analyses highlight the double-edged nature of genetic attributions-they simultaneously reduce people's perception of the perpetrator's sense of control while increasing people's tendencies to attribute the cause to internal factors and to expect the perpetrator to reoffend. These countervailing relations, in turn, predict sentencing in opposite directions, although no overall differences in sentencing or ultimate verdicts were found.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada bycheung@psych.ubc.ca.
Benjamin Y
BY
Cheung
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Steven J
SJ
Heine
D000328:Adult; D003415:Crime / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D057237:Criminals / Q000523:psychology*; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D005824:Genetics, Behavioral; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000235:genetics*; D011678:Punishment / Q000523:psychology; D012931:Social Environment
attribution theory; genetic essentialism; legal decision making; psychological essentialism