Theoretical models of jury decision-making

Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 41-65

  Groscup, Jennifer L ^a   Tallon, Jennifer ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858319166     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Brekke, N., and Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-86.
2. Cacioppo, J.T., and Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-31.
3. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., and 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.
4. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Kao, C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-7.
5. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., and Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-43.
6. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., and Morris, K.J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-18.
7. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-66.
8. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., and Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh (eds), Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford. pp. 212-52.
9. Chen, S., and Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford. pp. 73-96.
10. Cohen, A.R. (1957). Need for cognition and order of communication as determinants of opinion change. In C.I. Hovland (ed.), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11. Cohen, A.R., Stotland, E., and Wolfe, D.M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-4.
12. Cooper, J., Bennett, E.A., and Sukel, H.L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-94.
13. Cooper, J., and Neuhaus, I.M. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-71.
14. Denes-Raj, V., and Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-29.
15. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-24.
16. Epstein, S., Denes-Raj, V., and Pacini, R. (1995). The Linda problem revisited from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1124-38.
17. Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., and Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328-39.
18. Epstein, S., and Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford. pp. 462-82.
19. Faigman, D., and Baglioni, A. (1988). Bayes theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1-17.
20. Finkel, N.J. (1995). Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Finkel, N.J. (2000a). But it's not fair! Commonsense notions of unfairness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 898-952.
22. Finkel, N.J. (2000b). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 591-628.
23. Finkel, N.J. (2001). Not Fair! The Typology of Commonsense Fairness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24. Finkel, N.J., Crystal, D., and Watanabe, H. (2001). Commonsense notions of unfairness in Japan and the United States. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 345-80.
25. Finkel, N.J., and Groscup, J.L. (1997a). Crime prototypes, objective versus subjective culpability, and a commonsense balance. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 209-30.
26. Finkel, N.J., and Groscup, J.L. (1997b). When mistakes happen: Commonsense rules of culpability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 1-61.
27. Finkel, N.J., and Sales, B.D. (1997). Commonsense justice: Old roots, germinant ground, and new shoots. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 227-41.
28. Fiske, S.T., and Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Greene, E., Downey, C., and Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Juror decisions about damages in employment discrimination cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 107-21.
30. Haney, C. (1997). Commonsense justice and capital punishment: Problematizing the "will of the people." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 303-37.
31. Hastie, R. (1993a). Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Hastie, R. (1993b). Algebraic models of juror decision processes. In R. Hastie (ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 84-115.
33. Huntley, J.E., and Costanzo, M. (2003). Sexual harassment stories: Testing a storymediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 29-51.
34. Kaplan, M.F., and Kemmerick, G.D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493-9.
35. Kassin, S.M., Reddy, M.E., and Tulloch, W.F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43-55.
36. Kirkpatrick, L.A., and Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-44.
37. Koehler, J.J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493-513.
38. 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.
39. Kovera, M.B., McAuliff, B.D., and Hebert, K.S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decision in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-75.
40. Krauss, D.A., Lieberman, J.D., and Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 801-22.
41. Leippe, M.R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S.M., and Seib, H.M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-41.
42. Lieberman, J.D. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2526-53.
43. Lord, K.R., and Putrevu, S. (2006). Exploring the dimensionality of the Need for Cognition Scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 11-34.
44. Moore, P.J., and Gump, B.B. (1995). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2158-79.
45. Olsen-Fulero, L., and Fulero, S.M. (1997). Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 402-27.
46. Ostrom, T.M., Werner, C., and Saks, M.J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors' presumptions of guilt or innocence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 436-50.
47. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-87.
48. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 51, 242-58.
49. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-33.
50. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
51. Petty, R.E., and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.
52. Petty, R.E., and Wegener, D.T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford. pp. 41-72.
53. R. McGregor, Ontario Court of Justice, General Division (1992) (unpublished).
54. R. Theberge, Ontario Court of Justice, Northeast Region (1994) (unpublished).
55. Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., and Loftus, E.F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385-95.
56. Robbennolt, J.K., and Studebaker, C.A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353-74.
57. Saks, M.J., and Kidd, R.F. (1980). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123-60.
58. Schklar, J., and Diamond, S.S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159-84.
59. Sheppard V. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
60. Shestowskky, D., and Horowitz, L.M. (2004). How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 305-37.
61. Skeem, J.L., and Golding, S.L. (2001). Describing jurors' personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 561-621.
62. Smith, B.C., Penrod, S.D., Otto, A.L., and Park, R.C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49-82.
63. Smith, V.L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-72.
64. Smith, V.L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507-36.
65. Smith, V.L., and Studebaker, C.A. (1996). What do you expect? The influence of people's prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 517-32.
66. Sommers, S.R., and Kassin, S.M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368-77.
67. Stalans, L.J. (1993). Citizens' crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451-70.
68. Stalans, L.J., and Diamond, S.S. (1990). Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing: Misperceptions and discontent. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 199-214.
69. Stalans, L.J., and Lurigio, A.J. (1990). Lay and professionals' beliefs about crime and criminal sentencing: A need for theory, perhaps schema theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 333-49.
70. Steblay, N.M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S.M., and Jiminez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-35.
71. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. Reprinted in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds) (1982), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-20.
72. U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467 (1996).
73. Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 5-25.
74. Vidmar, N. (2002). Case studies of pre-and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 73-105.
75. Vidmar, N. (2003). When all of us are victims: Juror prejudice and "terrorist" trials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1143-78.
76. Wiener, R.L., Arnot, L., Winter, R., and Redmond, B. (2006). Generic prejudice in the law: Sexual assault and homicide. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145-55.
77. Wiener, R.L., Richmond, T.L., Seib, H.M., Rauch, S.M., and Hackney, A.A. (2002). The psychology of telling murder stories: Do we think in scripts, exemplars, or prototypes? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 119-39.