Evelo, AndrewDixon, Sophie2025-10-162025-10-162025https://hdl.handle.net/10289/17720Recent jury trials in the United States have tested the public’s willingness to hold parents criminally responsible for their children’s actions in mass shootings. However, due to the legal requirements of negligence, assigning secondary liability in such cases may be influenced by cognitive and social biases, potentially compromising fair decision-making. This study examines how hindsight bias, culpable causation bias, and gender bias affect jury decisions in secondary liability cases. Across three experiments, we manipulated factors that could elicit these biases. Experiment 1 tested the role of hindsight bias, predicting that jurors informed of a crime’s outcome would perceive it as more foreseeable and less able to accurately determine negligence. Experiment 2 examined culpability bias, hypothesising that—due to the stigma of illegal behaviour—a drug dealer who owns a gun would be judged more harshly than a hunter who owns a gun for the same negligent behaviour. Experiment 3 investigated gender bias, predicting that mothers—especially those violating caregiving and feminine norms—would be judged more harshly than fathers for the same negligent actions. Results revealed that hindsight bias influenced probability estimates as predicted but did not affect perceptions of negligence and culpability (Experiment 1). Consistent with predictions, however, participants assigned harsher punishments to defendants in stigmatised professions and to mothers who engaged in socially disapproved behaviours. These findings highlight the potential for bias in jury decision-making and underscore the need for legal safeguards to ensure more equitable outcomes in secondary liability cases.enAll items in Research Commons are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.Thesis