Emotional versus neutral trial language on mock jury recall, moral disengagement and verdict harshness ratings within an acquaintance rape trial

The purpose of the present study was to explore the cognitive factors that may influence the decision-making processes of mock jurors in an acquaintance rape trial, through manipulation of the language (emotional or neutral) used at trial. A genuine acquaintance rape trial was utilised with trial transcripts adapted to include emotionally valanced language or neutral language. A videotaped re-enactment included actors playing the role of a judge and a lawyer, with cross-examination shown to participants during the mock trial. Participant’s (N = 217) memory recall, moral disengagement, and verdict harshness (defendant credibility and sentence length) were examined along with their individual dichotomous verdict decision. Results displayed that the type of language mock jurors were exposed to, influenced their dichotomous verdict decision; neutral language evoked more guilty verdicts and higher verdict harshness ratings whereas emotional language (positively and negatively valanced words) elicited greater moral disengagement ratings post-trial. The type of language used was also found to impact mock jurors’ memory recall; on the whole, neutral language was better remembered, in contrast with previous research findings. These findings offer weight to substantiate the story model theory of trial decision-making, pertaining to jurors endorsing rape myths and morally disengaging with the complainant to help construct a story that matched available verdict options.