What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 376-394

  Keller, Stacie R ^a   Wiener, Richard L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; STUDENTS;

EID: 79960454677     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.971     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Berg, K. S., & Vidmar, N.(1975). Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 147-157. DOI:10.1016/0092-6566(75)90025-2.
2. 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. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170.
3. Bornstein, B. H.(1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. DOI:10.1023/A:1022326807441.
4. 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. DOI:10.1007/BF01039151.
5. Briere, J., Henschel, D., & Smiljanich, K.(1992). Attitudes toward sexual abuse: Sex differences and construct validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 398-406. DOI:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90067-E.
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. DOI:10.1007/BF01067031.
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. DOI:10.1023/A:1024831908377.
9. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S.(1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442. DOI:10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3.
10. Kovera, M. B.(2002). The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: An examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43-72. DOI:10.1023/A:1013829224920.
11. Maeder, E. M., Wiener, R. L., & Winter, R.(2007). Does a truck driver see what a nurse sees? The effects of occupation type on perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 56, 801-810. DOI:10.1007/s11199-007-9244-y.
12. 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. DOI:10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9.
13. Model Penal Code. § 2.02 (ULA, 1962; 1981).
14. 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. DOI:10.1023/A:1010659703309.
15. Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A.(1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 67-187. DOI:10.1007/BF01499353.
16. 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. DOI:10.2307/1143210.
17. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L.(1970). Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law & Society Review, 5, 319-330. DOI:10.2307/3052837.
18. Vidmar, N.(1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 5-25. DOI:10.1023/A:1024861925699.
19. Vidmar, N.(2002). Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 73-105. DOI:10.1023/A:1013881208990.
20. 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.
21. 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. DOI:10.1007/BF01039149.
22. Wiener, R. L., Arnot, L., Winter, R., & Redmond, B.(2006). Generic prejudice in the law: Sexual assault and homicide. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145-155. DOI:10.1207/s15324834basp2802-4.
23. Wiener, R. L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., & Hurt, L. E.(2002). The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 747-764. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.747.
24. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E.(1999). An interdisciplinary approach to understanding social sexual conduct at work. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556-595. DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.556.
25. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E.(2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75.
26. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C.(1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 71-93. DOI:10.1023/A:1024818110678.
27. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M.(1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-467. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455.
28. Wiener, R. L., Richter, E., Humke, A. M., Jones, M. B., Maeder, E. M., & Cantone, J. (unpublished). Regulatory Focus and Jury Instruction Comprehension in Capital Murder Trials, Motivation and Emotion.
29. 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. DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516.
30. Wiener, R. L., Voss, A. M., Winter, R. J., & Arnot, L.(2005). The more you see it, the more you know it: Memory accessibility and sexual harassment judgments. Sex Roles, 53, 807-820. DOI:10.1007/s11199-005-8294-2.
31. Wiener, R. L., & Winter, R. J.(2007). Totality of circumstances in sexual harassment decisions: A decision-making model. In R. L. Wiener, B. H. Bornstein, R. Schopp, & S. Willborn (Eds.), Social consciousness in legal decision making: Psychological perspectives (pp. 171-195). New York:Springer Press. DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-46218-9-9.