Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 730-750

  McCabe, John G ^a   Krauss, Daniel A ^a   Lieberman, Joel D ^a  

^a CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGGRESSION; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGGRESSION; COGNITION; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STUDENTS;

EID: 78649663710     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.902     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Barefoot v. Estelle. No. 82-6080, 463 U.S. 880 (S.Ct. 1983).
2. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732.
4. 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.
5. Bray, R. M. & Kerr N. L. (Eds.) (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic.
6. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
7. Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007). The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluation of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 561-571.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349-361.
9. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
10. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
11. Chaiken, S. Trope Y. (Eds.) (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
12. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
13. 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, 620-727.
14. Diamond, S. S. (1989). Scientific jury selection: What social scientists know and do not know. Judicature, 73, 178-183.
15. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
16. Diamond, S. S., Saks, M. J., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 301-326.
17. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997). The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-20.
18. Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (2002). Trial outcomes and demographics: Is there a Bronx effect? Texas Law Review, 80, 1839-1875.
19. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
20. Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 5, Personality and social psychology (Retrieved November 13 2006 from Claremont University website:.)
21. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive relative to analytical processing of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
22. Gardner, W., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 602-609.
23. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
25. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science and the Law, 21, 215-237.
26. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2006). Gender differences in attitudes towards psychopathic sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 603-625.
27. Hanson, R. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sexual offense recidivism. Ottawa: Department of Solicitor General.
28. Hanson, R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sex offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 predictive studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1-21.
29. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 377-394.
30. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 287-314.
31. Kovera, M., Gresham, A., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Ragan, P. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
32. Kovera, M., McAuliff, B., & Hebert, K. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
33. Krauss, D., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 113-137.
34. Krauss, D., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 801-822.
35. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2000). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 267-310.
36. Lieberman, J., Krauss, D., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in Sexually Violent Predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 507-526.
37. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2007). Scientific jury selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38. Lockhart v. McCree. 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
39. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 385-408.
40. Miller, H. A., Amenta, A. E., & Conroy, M. A. (2005). Sexually violent predators evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29-54.
41. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
42. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
43. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
44. Saks, M. J. (1997). What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions? Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 6, 1-54.
45. Saks, M. J. (2002). Trial outcomes and demographics: Easy assumptions versus hard evidence. Texas Law Review, 80, 1877-1888.
46. Schutte, J., & Hosch, H. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759-772.
47. Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection of bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368-1377.
48. United States v. Salerno. 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
49. Visher, C. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1-17.
50. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2007). Comparison of state laws authorizing involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators: 2006 update, revised. Retrieved July, 5, 2008, from
51. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.