Validity of the juror bias scale in relation to mock jury decisions;Validez de la escala de sesgo del jurado en relación con las decisiones grupales de jurados simulados

Psicothema

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 148-154

  De la Fuente Sánchez, Leticia ^b   García, Juan García ^c   Inmaculada de la Fuente Solana, E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALMERÍA   (Spain)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037286299     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AERA, APA, NCME (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
2. Arce, R., Fariña, F. y Fraga, A. I. (2000). Género y formación de juicios en un caso de violación. Psicothema, 12(4), 623-628.
3. Baumeister, R. F. y Darley, J. M. (1982). Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8 (2), 286-292.
4. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
5. Boyll, J.R. (1996). Psychological, cognitive, personality and interpersonal factors in jury verdicts. Law and Psychology Review, 15, 163-184.
6. Bray, J.R. y Noble, A.M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (12), 1.424-1.430.
7. Chapdelanie, A. y Griffin, S.F. (1997). Beliefs of guilt and recommended sentence as a functiion of juror bias in the O.J. Simpson trial. Journal of Social Issues, 53(3), 477-485.
8. Cowan, C.L., Thompson, W.C. y Ellsworth, P.C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on juror's predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1-2), 53-79.
9. Dane, F.C. y Wrightsman, L.S. (1982). Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors verdicts. In: L. Keer y M. Bray (Eds.): The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
10. De la Fuente, E.I., García, J. y Martín, I. (1998). Some individual differences in perception of the evidence and the verdict choice. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4, 361-373.
11. De la Fuente, L. (2001). Evaluación del sesgo de los jurados en situaciones simuladas de decisión individual y grupal. Almería: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almería. [Edición CD].
12. Devine, D. J.; Clayton, L. D.; Dunford,B. B.; Seying, R. y Pryce, J (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(3), 622-727.
13. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
14. Fisher, R.A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
15. García, J. (2000). Adaptación del Cuestionario de Actitudes Legales para la definición de perfiles psicosociales en la selección de jurados. Almería: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almería. [Edición CD].
16. García, J., De la Fuente, L. y De la Fuente, E.I. (en prensa). Aspectos psicológicos de la toma de decisiones de los miembros de un Jurado. En G. Buela, D. Bunce y E. Jiménez (Comps). Manual de Psicología Forense. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
17. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. y Pennington, N. (1986). La institución del Jurado en los Estados Unidos. Sus intimidades. Madrid: Civitas (Orig. 1983).
18. Izzett, R. y Leginski, W. (1974). Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristic in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 217-279.
19. Jackson, J. (1991). Juror decision-making and the trial process. En G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock. M. McMurran y C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, Law and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice (pp. 327-336). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
20. Kaplan, M.F. (1989). Studying juror cognition by studing judments of murder misterys. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 225-240.
21. Kassin, S.M. y 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(18), 1.459-1.472.
22. Kassin, S.M. y Wrightsman, L.S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 423-442.
23. Kerr, N.L., Hymes, R.W., Anderson, A.B. y Weathers, J.E. (1995). Defendant juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), 545-567
24. Kerr, N.L., Niedermeier, K.E., & Kaplan, M.F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70-86.
25. Kerwin, J. y Shaffer, D. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries. The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(2), 153-162.
26. Kovera, M.B.; Dickinson, J.J. y Cutler, B.L (en prensa). Voir dire and jury selection: Practical issues, research findings, and directions for future research. En A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 11: Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Son.
27. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L. y Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14(5), 409-438.
28. Kravitz, DA., Cutler, B.L. y Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17(6), 661-677.
29. Laughlin, P.R. y Ellis, A.L.(1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.
30. th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Washington, August.
31. MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244 (4908), 1.046-1.050.
32. Metha, C.R. y Patel, N.R. (1999). Exact permutational inference for categorical and nonparametric data. En R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. London: Sage.
33. Moran, G. (2000). Florida International University Criminal Juror Survey. American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Washington, D.C.
34. Myers, B. y Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22(2), 239-256.
35. Narby, D.J., Cutler, B.L. y Moran, G. (1993). A Meta-Analysis of association between Authoritarianism and Jurors' Perceptions of Defendant Culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 34-42.
36. Pennington, N. y Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-287.
37. Saks, M.J. (1997). What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions? Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 6, 1-53.
38. Shaffer, D.R. y Kerwin, J. (1992). On adhering to judicial instructions: Reactions of dogmatic and nondogmatic juries to the judge's charge in an entrapment case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1.133-1.147.
39. Shaffer, D.R., Plummer, D., y Hammock, G. (1986). Hath he suffered enough? Effects of jury dogmatism, defendant similarity, and defendant's pretrial suffering on juridical decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1.059-1.067.
40. Wrightsman, L.S. (2001). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson.