The effects of note-taking and trial transcript access on mock jury decisions in a complex civil trial

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 373-391

  Horowitz, Irwin A ^a   ForsterLee, Lynne ^b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 0035433362     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010655602400     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439-444.
2. Bargh, J. A., & Thein, R. D. (1985). Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and recall-judgment link: The case of information overload. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1129-1146.
3. Bermant, G. (1999). Courting the virtual: federal courts in an age of complete inter-connectedness. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 25, 527-586.
4. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
5. Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., & ForsterLee, L. (1993). The effects of technicality and access to trial transcripts on verdicts and information processing in a civil trial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 220-227.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
7. Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note-taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900-904.
8. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614.
9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. Uleman, & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
10. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
11. Di Vesta, F. J., & Grey, G. S. (1973). Listening and note-taking: II. Immediate and delayed recall as functions of variations in thematic continuity, note-taking, and length of listening-review intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278-287.
12. DeWitt , J. S., Richardson, J. T., & Warner, L. G. (1977). Novel Scientific Evidence and Controversial Cases: A Social Psychological Examination. Law and Psychology Review, 21, 1-21.
13. Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79(5), 224-232.
14. Flango, V. E. (1980). Would jurors do a better job if they could take notes? Judicature, 63, 436-443.
15. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror Competence in Civil Trials: The effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 14-21.
16. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. (1994). Effects of note-taking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567-578.
17. ForsterLee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Enhancing juror competence in a complex trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(457), 1-15.
18. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with jury note-taking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231-261.
19. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994) Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29-52.
20. Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). The effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757-768.
21. Kravchuk, M. J. (1999). The judicial process: A Superior Court perspective. Maine Law Review, 51, 14-21.
22. Lempert, R. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In R. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system. St Paul, MN: West.
23. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: The effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-533
24. People v. Hues, 92 N.Y. 2d 413, 417, 704 N.E. 2d 546, 548-49, 681 N.Y.S. 2d 779, 781 (1998).
25. People v. Dexheimer, 214 A.D. 2d 898, 902, 625 N.Y.S. 2d 719, 722 (3d Dep't 1995).
26. Peper, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note-taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514-522.
27. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 126-223). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. Rosenhan, D. L., Eisner, S. L., & Robinson, R. J. (1994). Note-taking can aid juror recall. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 53-61.
29. Rossi, F. F. (1999). Survey: Evidence. Syracuse Law Review, 49, 507-566.
30. Sand, L .B., & Reiss, S. A. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by district court judges in the second circuit. New York University Law Review, 60, 423-497.
31. Scott, L. A. (1989). An application of the elaboration likelihood model to jurors' decision making in a complex lawsuit. Unpublished master's thesis, Loyola University of Chicago.
32. Wilhoite v. Olin Corp, (N0.CV-83-5021 NE) (N.D. Ala.) (1985).