New visual technologies in court: Directions for research

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 109-126

  Feigenson, Neal ^a   Dunn, Meghan A ^b  

^a QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Federal Judicial Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Attribution; Computer simulation; Legal evidence; Persuasive communication; Virtual reality

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SYSTEM; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGIST; RESEARCH; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; VIRTUAL REALITY; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL LIABILITY; MASS MEDIUM; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; UNITED STATES; VIDEORECORDING;

AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; LIABILITY, LEGAL; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; TECHNOLOGY; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 0037314777     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021683013042     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Andersen, R. (1995). Consumer culture and TV programming. Boulder, CO: Westview.
2. Bailis, D., & Strong, B. (1997, August 18). What we bring and leave behind when we travel to fictional worlds. Paper presented at American Psychological Association annual convention, Chicago.
3. Barry, A. (1997). Visual intelligence. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
4. Bell, B., & Loftus, E. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659-664.
5. Bennett, R. B., Liebman, J. H., & Fetter, R. E. (1999). Seeing is believing; or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Wake Forest Law Review, 34, 257-294.
6. Bermant, G. (1999). Courting the virtual: Federal courts in an age of complete inter-connectedness. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 25, 527-562.
7. Biocca, F., Kim, T., & Levy, M. (1995). The vision of virtual reality. In F. Biocca & M. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 3-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Blascovich, J. (2001, July 19). Presentation at Federal Judicial Center Research Conference on Courtroom Technology, Washington, DC.
9. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Burns, R. (1999). A theory of the trial. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. Connors v. United States, 502 U.S. 899, 911 (1991).
13. Douglas, K., Lyon, D., & Ogloff, J. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485-501.
14. Dunn, M. (2001, February). The effects of computer animation on mock jurors' decision making. Poster presented at SPSP conference, San Antonio.
15. Fadely, K. G. (1990). Use of computer-generated visual evidence in aviation litigation: Interactive video comes to court. The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 55, 839-901.
16. Federal Judicial Center/National Institute for Trial Advocacy. (2001). Effective use of courtroom technology: A judge's guide to pretrial and trial. Washington, DC: Author.
17. Federal Rules of Evidence. (2001). St. Paul, MN: West.
18. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576-603.
20. Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Garry, M., Manning, C., Loftus, E., & Sherman, S. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 208-214.
22. Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
23. Goodman, G., Tobey, A., Batterman-Faunce, J., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., et al. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165-203.
24. Hallin, S. (1986). Network news: We keep America on top of the world. In T. Gitlin (Ed.), Watching television (pp. 9-41). New York: Pantheon.
25. Heaps, C., & Nash, M. (1999). Individual differences in imagination inflation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 313-318.
26. Johnson, M., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
27. Johnson, M., & Raye, C. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85.
28. Johnson, M., Raye, C., Foley, H., & Foley, M. (1981). Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring. American Journal of Psychology, 94, 37-64.
29. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 121-135). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
30. Judicial Conference of the United States. (1999, March). Report of proceedings. Washington, DC: Author.
31. Kassin, S., & Dunn, M. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269-281.
32. Kassin, S., & Garfield, D. (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. Lassiter, D., Geers, A., Munhall, P., Handley, I., & Beers, M. (2001). Videotaped confessions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 189-253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
34. Lederer, F. (1999). The road to the virtual courtroom? A consideration of today's - and tomorrow's-high-technology courtrooms. South Carolina Law Review, 50, 799-844.
35. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Monaco, J. (2000). How to read a film (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Morreale, J. (1991). A new beginning: A textual frame analysis of the political campaign film. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
38. Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Nather, D. (1989, September 2). Delta held liable in '85 crash at Dallas/Fort Worth. The Dallas Morning News, p. A1.
40. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
41. Oliver, E., & Griffitt, W. (1976). Emotional arousal and "objective" judgment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 399-400.
42. Pennington, N., & Hastie,R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-551.
43. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
44. Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.
45. Prentice, D., & Gerrig, R. (1999). Exploring the boundary between fiction and reality. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 529-546). New York: Guilford Press.
46. Prentice, D., Gerrig, R., & Bailis, D. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 416-420.
47. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Selbak, J. (1994). Digital litigation: The prejudicial effects of computer-generated animation in the court-room. High Technology Law Journal, 9, 337-367.
49. Shapiro, M., & Chock, T. (1998, August). Psychological processes in perceiving reality. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore.
50. Shapiro, M., & MacDonald, D. (1992). I'm not a real doctor, but I play one in virtual reality: Implications of virtual reality for judgments about reality. Journal of Communication, 42, 94-114.
51. Sherman, R. (1993, February 8). And now, the power of tape. National Law Journal, p. A1.
52. Sherwin, R. (2000). When law goes pop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Slattery, K. (1990). Visual information in viewer interpretation and evaluation of television news stories. Journal of Visual Literacy, 10, 26-44.
54. Smith, V. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.
55. Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, CV 88-34414 (Super. Ct., Maricopa Co. Ariz., 1989), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. App. Ct. 1996).
56. Sutherland, I. (2001). The ultimate display. In R. Packer & K. Jordan (Eds.), Multimedia: From Wagner to virtual reality (pp. 232-236). New York: Norton.
57. Whalen, D., & Blanchard, F. (1982). Effects of photographic evidence on mock juror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 30-41.
58. Wissler, R., Evans, D., Hart, A., Morry, M., & Saks, M. (1997). Explaining "pain and suffering" awards: The role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 181-207.