Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Stealing Thunder as a Courtroom Tactic Revisited: Processes and Boundaries

Stealing Thunder as a Courtroom Tactic Revisited: Processes and Boundaries Stealing thunder refers to a dissuasion tactic in which an individual reveals potentially incriminating evidence first, for the purpose of reducing its negative impact on an evaluative audience. We examined whether it was necessary to frame the negative revelation in a manner that downplayed its importance, and found that stealing thunder successfully dissuaded mock jurors even without framing. We also sought to determine the mechanism by which stealing thunder operated, and found that stealing thunder led mock jurors to change the meaning of incriminating evidence to be less damaging to the individual. We also found that stealing thunder’s effectiveness did not hinge on whether or not opposing counsel also mentioned the thunder evidence, and that the stealing thunder tactic was no longer effective when opposing counsel revealed to the mock jurors that the stealing thunder tactic had been used on them. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

Stealing Thunder as a Courtroom Tactic Revisited: Processes and Boundaries

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/stealing-thunder-as-a-courtroom-tactic-revisited-processes-and-WLMPr203IR

References (38)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1023431823661
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Stealing thunder refers to a dissuasion tactic in which an individual reveals potentially incriminating evidence first, for the purpose of reducing its negative impact on an evaluative audience. We examined whether it was necessary to frame the negative revelation in a manner that downplayed its importance, and found that stealing thunder successfully dissuaded mock jurors even without framing. We also sought to determine the mechanism by which stealing thunder operated, and found that stealing thunder led mock jurors to change the meaning of incriminating evidence to be less damaging to the individual. We also found that stealing thunder’s effectiveness did not hinge on whether or not opposing counsel also mentioned the thunder evidence, and that the stealing thunder tactic was no longer effective when opposing counsel revealed to the mock jurors that the stealing thunder tactic had been used on them.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.