Moral outrage over graphic evidence can influence jurors Dec. 3 (UPI) -- Two recent studies suggest that moral outrage, generated through the interactive effect of anger and disgust after viewing graphic evidence, can influence jurors and make them more confident in a guilty vote. Researchers suggest judges consider the kind of evidence they deem permissible in court, as heinous videos captured on phone and security cameras become ubiquitous. During the first study, conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago, participants read two short passages describing a sexual assault and a Westboro Baptist Church funeral picket. The results showed that anger only predicted moral outrage when the participants felt a moderately high level of disgust, and that disgust predicted moral outrage in the presence of anger. "It's the combination of the two that produces moral outrage," said Jessica Salerno, professor at Arizona State University, who co-authored a followup study, which looked at whether anger and disgust would increase moral outrage among jurors, and in turn influence a guilty verdict. Participants were shown a 20-minute presentation of evidence from an actual murder case. Participants' confidence in a guilty verdict was influenced by their anger and disgust. Anger was a stronger predictor of moral outrage as disgust increased, but disgust was a strong predictor of moral outrage at all levels of anger. Moral outrage affects confidence in a guilty verdict. All participants saw the same evidence, but those who experienced the combination of anger and disgust were more confident in a guilty verdict because they were more morally outraged about the crime," Salerno said. "This may not be in jurors' control and they may not be aware that their emotions are influencing their decisions," she added. When judges weigh the informational value versus the prejudicial value of the evidence, it is important to be very mindful that the negative emotions roused by emotionally disturbing evidence can make jurors more likely to vote guilty. Salerno and Liana Peter-Hagene of the University of Illinois at Chicago published their findings in Psychological Science, which also published the first study. Psychological Science