Firing back at the backfire effect: the influence of mortality salience and nullification beliefs on reactions to inadmissible evidence.

Two studies were conducted to explore psychological factors that contribute to the influence of inadmissible evidence (i.e., the backfire effect) on jurors' verdicts. On the basis of hypotheses derived from terror management theory, we predicted that reminders of mortality, in contrast to an aversive control topic, should lead participants to be less punitive when confronted with inadmissible (as opposed to admissible) evidence, when participants were either situationally induced or dispositionally prone to follow their personal sense of justice. In Study 1, control participants who scored high on a measure of nullification beliefs, and thus were prone to relying on their own sense of justice rather than the law, exhibited the backfire effect. However, reminding participants of their mortality reduced the damaging influence of inadmissible evidence. Study 2 extended these findings by showing parallel effects with a manipulation of nullification proneness via judicial instructions. The implications of these factors on the judicial process are discussed.