Mock jury research: Where do we go from here?

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 467-479

  Wiener, Richard L ^a   Krauss, Daniel A ^b   Lieberman, Joel D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; RESEARCH; REVIEW;

CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; RESEARCH;

EID: 79960445849     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.989     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Berg, K. S., & Vidmar, N. (1975). Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 147-157.
2. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
4. Buhrmester, B., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk; A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-6.
5. Caprathe, W. (2011). Commentary. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
6. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310.
7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
9. Fox, P., Wingrove, T., & Pfeifer, C. (2011). A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision-making in split recovery cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
10. Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., Tubb, V. A., & Granillo, E. A. (2011). Town vs. gown: A direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
11. Keller, S. R., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
12. McCabe, J. G., & Krauss, D. A. (2011). The effect of acknowledging mock jurors' feelings on affective and cognitive biases: It depends on the sample. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
13. Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621-637.
14. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (2009). Social science in law, cases and materials (7th ed.) New York: Foundation Press.
15. Nunez, N., McCrea, S. M., & Culhane, S. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room? Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
16. Reichert, J., Miller, M. M., Bornstein, B. H., & Shelton, D. E. (2011). How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: A comparison of students and jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
17. Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409-431.
18. Schwartz, S. L., & Hunt, J. S. (2011). Sexual harassment trials involving Latina plaintiffs: Effects of a cultural relativist argument and juror background. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
19. Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198-233.
20. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21. Vidmar, N. (2008). Civil juries in ecological context: Methodological implications for research. In B. H. Bornstein, R. L. Wiener, R. Schopp, & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Civil juries and civil justice: Psychological and legal perspectives (pp. 35-65). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
22. 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.
23. Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L. E., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Warren, L., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516-576.