The influence of sample type, presentation format and strength of evidence on juror simulation research

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 139-153

  Martín, Ma Eva ^a   De La Fuente, Leticia ^b   De La Fuente, E Inmaculada ^c   García, Juan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALMERÍA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Juror decision making; Presentation format; Sample type; Simulations; Strength of evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947431006     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160500537431     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170-177.
2. Bermant, G., McGuire, M., McKinley, W., & Salo, C. (1974). The logic of simulation in jury research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1, 224-233.
3. Borgida, E. (1979). Character proof and the fireside induction. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 189-202.
4. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 75-91.
5. Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extralegal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors' demographic characteristic and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 127-147.
6. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior. Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
7. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr, & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
8. Brown, M. B. (1983). P4F. Two-way and Multiway frequency tables. Measures of association and the log-linear model. In W. J. Dixon (Ed.), BMDP statistical software. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91-103.
10. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310.
11. Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. (1977). The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp, & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, an the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
12. De la Fuente, E. L, Garcia, J., & Martin, I. (1998). Some individual differences in perception of the evidence and the verdict choice. Psychology. Crime & Law, 4, 361-373.
13. De la Fuente, L., De la Fuente, E. I., & Garcia, J. (2003). Effects of pretrial juror bias, strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: new validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores. Psychology. Crime & Law, 8, 197-209.
14. De la Fuente, L., Garcia, J., & De la Fuente, E. I. (2003). Validez de la escala de sesgo del jurado en relación con las decisiones grupales de jurados simulados. Psicothema, 15, 148-154.
15. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 622-727.
16. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
17. Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M. A. (2003). New visual technologies in court: Directions for research. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 109-126.