Mock jurors' judgments about opposing scientific experts: Do cross-examination, deliberation and need for cognition matter?

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 37-60

  Salerno, Jessica M ^a,c   McCauley, Michelle R ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b Department of Psychology   (United States)

^c MC 285 ^*  (United States)

^d MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COLLEGE STUDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN;

EID: 68149116026     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Cacioppo J, Petty R: The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982; 42:116-131
2. Kovera M, McAuliff B: The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluation of psychology science: are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology 2000; 85:574-586
3. Kovera M, Russano M, McAuliff B: Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Special Issue: Expert Testimony in the Courts: The Influence of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho decisions 2002; 8''180-200
4. Kovera M, McAuliff B, Hebert K: Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror and gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999; 84:362-375
5. Diamond S, Casper J, Heiert C, Marshall A: Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1996; 87:17-47
6. McAuliff B, Kovera M, Nunez G: Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior 2009; Advanced online publication. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18587635
7. Kovera M, Levy R, Borgida, E, Penrod S: Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior 1994; 18:653-674
8. Spanos NP, Dubreuil SC, Gwynn MI: The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 1991-1992; 11:37-51
9. Kassin SM, Williams LN, Saunders CL: Dirty tricks of cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior 1990; 14:373-384
10. Krauss DA, Lee DH: Deliberating on dangerousness and death: jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2003; 26:113-137
11. Lieberman JD, Carrell CA, Miethe TD, Krauss DA: Gold versus platinum: do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2008; 14:27-62
12. Hastie R, Penrod S, Pennington N: Inside the Jury. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983
13. Prichard M, Keenan J: Does jury deliberation really improve jurors' memories? Applied Cognitive Psychology 2002; 16:589-601
14. Cohen A, Stotland E, Wolfe D: An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Abnormal and Social Psychology 1955; 51:291-294
15. Cacioppo J, Petty R, Kao C, Rodriguez R: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 51:1032-1043
16. Verplanken B: Need for cognition and external information search: responses to time pressure during decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality 1993; 27:238-252
17. Verplanken B, Hazenberg P, Pelenewen G: Need for cognition and external information search effort. Journal of Research in Personality 1992; 26:128-136
18. Cacioppo J, Petty R, Morris K: Effect of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983; 45:805-818
19. Smith S, Petty R: Message framing and persuasion: a message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1996; 22:257-268 (Pubitemid 126089336) (Pubitemid 126173010)
20. McAuliff B, Kovera M: Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2008; 38:385-408
21. Cooper J, Bennett E, Sukel H: Complex scientific testimony: how do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 1996; 20:379-394
22. Petty R, Cacioppo T: The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984; 46:69-81
23. Leippe M, Eisenstadt D, Rauch S, Seib H: Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004; 89:524-554 (Pubitemid 38782942)
24. Shestowsky D, Horowitz L: How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock juries. Law and Human Behavior 2004; 28:305-337 (Pubitemid 39005584)
25. Baron R, Kenny D: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 51:1173-1182
26. Devine D, Clayton L, Dunford B, Seying R, Pryce J: Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2001; 7:622-727 (Pubitemid 33656952)
27. Kalven H, Zeisel H: The American Jury. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1966
28. Devenport J, Cutler B: Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior 2004; 28:569-576 (Pubitemid 41449429)
29. Stasser G, Kerr L, Bray R: The social psychology of jury deliberations: structure, process, and product, in The Psychology of the Courtroom. Edited by Kerr N, Bray R. New York, Academic Press, 1982; 221-256
30. MacCoun R, Kerr N: Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1988; 54:21-33
31. Tanford S, Penrod S: Jury deliberations: discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1986; 16:322-347
32. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly A: Heuristic and systematic Information processing within and beyond the persuasion context, in Unintended Thought. Edited by Uleman J, Bargh J. New York, Guilford Press, 1989; 212-252
33. Petty R, Cacioppo J, Goldman R: Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1981; 41:847-855
34. Bornstein B: The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior 1999; 23:75-91
35. Bray R, Struckman-Johnson C, Osborne M, McFarlane J, Scott J: The effects of defendant status on the decisions of student and community juries. Social Psychology 1978; 41:256-260
36. Bennett M: Dealing with the state's expert: one last question. Defending People: the Art and Science of Criminal Defense Trial Lawyering Blog. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/10/dealing-with- state-expert-one-last.html
37. Fulero S, Penrod S: The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: what works? Ohio Northern University Law Review 1990; XVII:229-253