Abstract
The effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on verdicts by simulated jurors and juries were investigated. 360 undergraduate students in introductory psychology were classified as authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, or egalitarian in their legal attitudes on the basis of responses to the Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. An equal number (120) of each juror type was selected. They were grouped into six-person homogeneous mock juries and asked to render an individual decision prior to deliberation, an individual post-deliberation verdict, and a group decision. Prior to deliberation the authoritarian student jurors responded more punitively toward a defendant to whom they were similar. The deliberation process exerted a moderating influence, and the egalitarian student jurors were especially susceptible to this influence. Finally similarity to the defendant was the most salient factor in determining the decision, and student juries were significantly more punitive toward a defendant who was similar to them in race and socio-economic status.