Revising the factor structure of the juror bias scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 239-256

  Myers, Bryan ^a,c   Lecci, Lea ^b  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; GUILT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031977901     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025798204956     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
3. Ajzen, I., & Timko, C. (1986). Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 259-276.
4. Baumeister, R. F., & Darley, J. M. (1982). Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 262-292.
5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
7. Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. prejudice, miss sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734-750.
8. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424-1430.
9. Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105-126.
10. Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J. J., Weaver, F. M., MacCoun, R. J., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187-201.
11. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761.
12. Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of the deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
13. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147-167.
14. Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832.
15. Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45-54.
16. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Hlggins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process versus crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31-51.
18. Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233-259.
19. Garcia, L., & Griffitt, W. (1978). Evaluation and recall of evidence: Authoritarianism and the Patty Hearst Case. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 57-61.
20. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 323-345.
21. Greene, E. L., & Wade, R. (1987). Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 1-13.
22. Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.) (1995). Structural equations modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. London-Sage.
23. Johnson, C., & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 487-506.
24. Johnson, J. D., Whitestone, E., Jackson, L. A., & Gatto, L. (1995). Justice is still not colorblind: Differential racial effects of exposure to inadmissible evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 893-898.
25. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415-419.
26. Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131-146.
27. Jöreskog, K. G. (1977). Structural equation models in the social sciences: Specification, estimation and testing. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Applications of statistics (pp. 265-287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
28. Jöreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443-477.
29. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Kaplan, M. F. (1982). Cognitive processes in the individual juror. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 197-217). New York: Academic Press.
31. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1445.
32. Kassin, S. L., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459-1472.
33. Kassin, S. L., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442.
34. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39-70.
35. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
36. Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661-677.
37. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.
38. Lamberth, J., Kreiger, E., & Shay, S. (1982). Jury decision-making: A case of attitude change mediated by authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 419-434.
39. MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046-1050.
40. Mahoney, A. R. (1982). American jury voir dire and the ideal of equal justice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 481-494.
41. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
42. Morrison, D. M. (1989). Predicting contraceptive efficacy: A discriminant analysis of three groups of adolescent women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1431-1452.
43. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
44. Neitzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1982). The effects of variations in voir dire procedures in capital murder trials. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 1-12.
45. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-287.
47. Petkova, K. C., Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1995). Salience of anti-abortion beliefs and commitment to an attitudinal position: On the strength, structure, and predictive validity of anti-abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 463-483.
48. Phares, E., & Wilson, K. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40, 392-406.
49. Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
50. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.
51. Sealy, A. P. (1981). Another look at social psychological aspects of juror bias. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 187-200.
52. Sosis, R. (1974). Internal-external control and the perception of responsibility of another for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 393-399.
53. Stewart, J. E. (1985). Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 373-378.
54. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345-353.
55. Tanaka, J. F. (1983). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equations models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park: Sage.
56. Thomas, E. A. C., & Hogue, A. (1976). Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confidence ratings in juror decision making. Psychological Review, 83, 442-465.
57. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
58. Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901-919.
59. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
60. Werner, C. M., Kagehiro, D. K., & Strube, M. J. (1982). Conviction proneness and the authoritarian juror: Inability to disregard information or attitudinal bias? Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 629-636.
61. Wrightsman, L., Neitzel, M. T., & Fortune, W. H. (1994). Psychology and the legal system (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.