The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 19, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 867-884

  Forsterlee, Lynne ^a   Kent, Leeana ^a   Horowitz, Irwin A ^b  

^a CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPETENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MENTAL TASK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 28644439827     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1124     Document Type: Article

References (34)

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. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: a social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-392.
3. Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900-904.
4. Diamond, S. S. (2003). Truth, justice, and the jury. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(1), 143-155.
5. DiVesta, F. J., & Grey, G. S. (1973). Listening and notetaking: 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.
6. Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in Federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(3), 251-308.
7. Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 705-745.
8. Flango, V. E. (1980). Would jurors do a better job if they could take notes? Judicature, 63(9), 436-443.
9. ForsterLee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Enhancing juror competence in a complex trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 305-319.
10. ForsterLee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (2003). The effects of jury-aid innovations on juror performance in complex civil trials. Judicature, 86(4), 184-190.
11. 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.
12. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., Victor, E., & Brown, N. (2000). The summary line: the effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing. Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 259-270.
13. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, G. I. (1991). The trouble of thinking: activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
14. Greene, E., Woody, W. D., & Winter, R. (2000). Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: is bifurcation necessary? Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 187-205.
15. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing juror's participation in trials: a field experiment with jury note-taking and question asking. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231-262.
16. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: a National field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 121-150.
17. Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and notetaking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 121-130.
18. Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 757-768.
19. Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K., & Kaplan, M. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. juries: new evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70-86.
20. Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(3), 309-332.
21. 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.
22. Nguyen, T. H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). New developments concerning jury strategy. Managerial Law, 43(1/2), 99-102.
23. Oosterdorp v. Khanna. (1991). 937 F.2d. 1177, 1179-1180 (9th Cir.).
24. Penrod, S. D., & Heuer, L. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: assessing aids to jury decision making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2/3), 259-284.
25. Peper, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note-taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514-522.
26. Phonetele, Inc. v. AT&T. (1989). 889 F.2d. 224, 231-231 (9th Cir.).
27. Richey, C. R. (1983). A modern management technique for trial courts to improve the quality of justice: requiring direct testimony to submitted in written form prior to trial. Georgetown Law Review, 72, 73-93.
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. Sanders, J., Diamond, S. S., & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 82(2), 139-153.
30. Selvin, M., & Picus, L. (1987). The debate over jury performance. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
31. Smith, V. L. (1997). How jurors make decisions: the value of trial innovations. In G. T. Munsterman, P. L. Hannaford, & G. M. Whitehead (Eds), Trial innovations (pp. 7-21). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
32. Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing punitive damages. Yale Law Journal, 107, 2071-2111.
33. Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Ritove, I. (2002). Predictably incoherent judgments. Stanford Law Review, 54, 1153.
34. Wilhoite v. Olin Corp. (1985). (no. CV-83-5021 NE) (N.D. Ala.).