Investigating the consequences of administering a standardized pretrial juror bias assessment

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 65-80

  Morris, Dustin ^b   Lecci, Len ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; LAW SUIT; MEASUREMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING; SEMANTICS; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 28044469906     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adorno TW, Frenkel BE, Levinson DJ, Sanford RN: The Authoritarian Personality. Oxford, England, Harpers, 1950
2. Boehm VR: Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: an application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review 1968; 3:734-750
3. Kravitz DA, Cutler BL, Brock P: Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior 1993; 17:661-667
4. Altemeyer B: Right Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg, University of Manitoba Press, 1981
5. Rubin Z, Peplau L: Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues 1975; 31:65-88
6. Altendorf T: The construction of a scale to measure attitudes toward jury service. Court Call 1996; 1-4
7. Regoli RM: An empirical assessment of Niederhoffer's police cynicism scale. Journal of Criminal Justice 1976; 231-241
8. Butler K, Wrightsman LS: Attitudes toward law enforcement and mock juror's reactions to an entrapment defense. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society, Austin, TX, March 2002
9. Pennington N, Hastie R: Juror decision-making models: the generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin 1981; 89:246-287
10. Kassin S, Wrightsman L: The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality 1983; 17:423-442
11. Myers B, Lecci L: Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: a method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior 1998; 22:239-256
12. Lecci L, Myers B: Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: a cross-validation of sample and method. Law and Human Behavior 2002; 26:455-463
13. Rogers JR: Assessing right to die attitudes: a conceptually guided measurement model. Journal of Social Issues 1996; 52:63-84
14. Hans V, Lofquist W: Juror's judgments of business liability in tort cases: implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review 1992; 26:85-115
15. Deitz SR, Blackwell KT, Daley PC, Bentley BJ: Measurement of empathy toward rape victims. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982; 43:372-384
16. Burt MR: Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980; 38:217-230
17. Hingula R, Wrightsman L: Comprehension of judicial instructions about aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a death penalty case. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society, Austin, TX, March 2002
18. Narby DJ, Cutler BL, Moran G: A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and juror's perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993; 78:34-42
19. Tulving E, Schachter DL: Priming and human memory systems. Science 1990; 247:301-306
20. Collins AM, Loftus EF: A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 1975; 82:407-428
21. Higgins ET, Rholes WS, Jones CR: Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1977; 13:141-154
22. Lepore L, Brown R: Category and stereotype activation: is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997; 72:275-287
23. Steele CM: Stereotyping and its threat are real. American Psychologist 1998; 53:680-681
24. Bargh JA, Chaiken S, Govender R, Pratto F: The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992; 62:893-912
25. Kahnemen D, Tversky A: The simulation heuristic, in Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Edited by Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982
26. Tetlock PE: Accountability, a social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly 1985; 48:227-236
27. Bodenhausen G: Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: testing process models of stereotypic use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988; 55:726-737
28. Payne KB: Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001; 81:181-192
29. Judd CM, Blair IV, Chapleau KM: Automatic stereotypes vs. automatic prejudice: sorting out the possibilities in the Payne (2001) weapon paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2004; 40:75-81
30. Lecci L, Snowden J, Morris D: Using social science research to inform and evaluate the contributions of trial consultants in the voir dire. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 2004; 4:67-78
31. Krauss E, Bonora B: Jury work: Systematic Techniques. The National Jury Project, 1999
32. Lecci L, Myers B: Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Manuscript under review, 2004
33. Lecci L, Morris D, Myers B. Predicting evidence selection, evidence evaluation, and verdicts among mock jurors based on racial bias and innate criminality beliefs. Manuscript in preparation, 2005
34. Diamond SS: Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior 1997; 21:561-571
35. Sears DO: College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 51:515-530
36. Konecni VJ, Ebbesen EB: External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior 1979; 3:39-70
37. Weiten W, Diamond SS: A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: the case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior 1979; 3:71-91
38. Bornstein BH: The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior 1999; 23:75-91
39. Johnson C, Haney C: Felony voir dire: an exploratory study of its content and effect. Law and Human Behavior 1994; 18:487-506
40. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE: Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 1989; 243:1668-1674
41. Middendorf K, Luginbuhl J: The value of a nondirective voir dire style in jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior 1995; 22:129-151
42. Kovera MB, Dickinson JJ, Cutler BL: Voir dire and jury selection: practical issues, research findings, and directions for future research, in Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 11: Forensic Psychology. Edited by Goldstein AM. New York, John Wiley Sons, 2003