Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 13-28

  Bornstein, Brian H ^a   Golding, Jonathan M ^b   Neuschatz, Jeffrey ^c   Kimbrough, Christopher ^a   Reed, Krystia ^a   Magyarics, Casey ^b   Luecht, Katherine ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

juries; juror decision making; meta analysis; verisimilitude

Indexed keywords

AWARDS AND PRIZES; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; OFFENDER; PSYCINFO; SAMPLING; STUDENT; COMPENSATION; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; RESEARCH;

COMPENSATION AND REDRESS; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; JUDICIAL ROLE; MALE; RESEARCH;

EID: 85007240683     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000223     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. http://dx.doi.org/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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441
4. Bornstein, B. H. (2017). Jury simulation research: Pros, cons, trends and alternatives. In M. B. Kovera (Ed.), The psychology of juries. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Bornstein, B. H., & McCabe, S. G. (2005). Jurors of the absurd? The role of consequentiality in jury simulation research. Florida State University Law Review Florida State University College of Law, 32, 443-467.
6. Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12, 127-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370120204
7. Bottoms, B. L., Peter-Hagene, L. C., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. R., Mitchell, T. S., & Goodman, G. S. (2014). Explaining gender differences in jurors reactions to child sexual assault cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 789-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2147
8. Bray, R. M., Struckman-Johnson, C., Osborne, M. D., McFarlane, J. B., & Scott, J. (1978). The effects of defendant status on the decisions of student and community juries. Social Psychology, 41, 256-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033562
9. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01067031
10. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.605
11. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic mechanisms and processes (pp. 702-742). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Dorr, N. (2006). Conducting a metaanalysis. In F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychological research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed., pp. 315-325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976626.n21
13. Crowley, M. J., OCallaghan, M. G., & Ball, R. J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01499146
14. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 215-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370070206
15. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01062972
16. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046434.39181.07
17. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042
18. Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York, NY: New York University Press.
19. Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ law0000006
20. 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, 622-727.
21. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1024831908377
22. Diamond, S. S. (Ed.). (1979). Simulation research and the law [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 3.
23. Elliott, R., & Robinson, R. J. (1991). Death penalty attitudes and the tendency to convict or acquit. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 389-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02074078
24. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01053437
25. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 597-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024856613829
26. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (2001). The role of emotions in comparative negligence judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 576-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02057.x
27. Feild, H. S., & Barnett, N. J. (1978). Simulated jury trials: Students vs. real people as jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 287-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924071
28. Finkel, N. J., & Duff, K. B. (1991). Felony-murder and community sentiment: Testing the Supreme Courts assertions. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 405-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02074079
29. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct? Forensic Reports, 1, 65-79.
30. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1989). How jurors construe "insanity." Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41-59.
31. Finkel, N. J., Hurabiell, M. L., & Hughes, K. C. (1993). Competency, and other constructs, in right to die cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 11, 135-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370110204
32. Finkel, N. J., Meister, K. H., & Lightfoot, D. M. (1991). The self-defense defense and community sentiment. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 585-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01065854
33. Finkelstein, R., & Bastounis, M. (2010). The effect of the deliberation process and jurors prior legal knowledge on the sentence: The role of psychological expertise and crime scene photo. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 426-441.
34. Fitzgerald, J. M. (2000). Younger and older jurors: The influence of environmental supports on memory performance and decision making in complex trials. Journal of Gerontology, 55B, 323-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronb/55.6.P323
35. Foley, L. A., & Pigott, M. A. (1997). Race, age, and jury decisions in a civil rape trial. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15, 37-55.
36. Foley, L. A., & Pigott, M. A. (2000). Belief in a just world and jury decisions in a civil rape trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 935-951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02504.x
37. Fontaine, G., & Kiger, R. (1978). The effects of defendant dress and supervision on judgments of simulated jurors: An exploratory study. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 63-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF01047503
38. Fox, P., Wingrove, T., & Pfeifer, C. (2011). A comparison of students and jury panelists decision-making in split recovery cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 358-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.968
39. Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345, 1502-1505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
40. Freedman, J. L., Krismer, K., MacDonald, J. E., & Cunningham, J. A. (1994). Severity of penalty, seriousness of the charge, and mock jurors verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 189-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01499015
41. Fulero, S. M., & Finkel, N. J. (1991). Barring ultimate issue testimony: An "insane" rule? Law and Human Behavior, 15, 495-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01650291
42. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.323
43. Golding, J. M., Hodell, E. C., Dunlap, E. E., Wasarhaley, N. E., & Keller, P. S. (2013). When a son steals money from his mother: Courtroom perceptions of elder financial exploitation. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 25, 126-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2013.751816
44. Golding, J. M., Lynch, K. R., & Wasarhaley, N. E. (2015). Impeaching rape victims in criminal court: Does concurrent civil action hurt justice? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260515584342
45. Goodman, G. S., Golding, J. M., Helgeson, V. S., Haith, M. M., & Michelli, J. (1987). When a child takes the stand: Jurors perceptions of childrens eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 27-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044837
46. Greene, E., Wilson, L., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Impact of hypnotic testimony on the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 61-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01056163
47. Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 590-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.590
48. Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979- 006-9028-x
49. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01040620
50. 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 & the Law, 29, 452-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.970
51. Jones, A., Bergold, A. S., Dillon, M., & Penrod, S. D. (2016). Sensitizing jurors to factors influencing the accuracy of eyewitness identification: Assessing the effectiveness of the Henderson instructions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
52. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a Juror Bias Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3
53. Keller, S. R., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 376-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.971
54. Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press.
55. Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (2005). Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 322-364). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
56. Kovera, M. B. (2017). The psychology of juries. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
57. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1162-1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749- 5978(02)00021-3
58. Lamberth, J., Krieger, E., & Shay, S. (1982). Juror decision making: A case of attitude change mediated by authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 419-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092- 6566(82)90003-4
59. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21
61. Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Fenwick, K. L. (2015). Educating Canadian jurors about the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder defence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47, 226-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000016
62. Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 197-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000027
63. 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 & the Law, 29, 331-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.990
64. McCabe, J. G., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2010). Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 730-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.902
65. Miller, M., Wood, S. M., & Chomos, J. C. (2014). Relationships between support for the death penalty and cognitive processing: A comparison of students and community members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 732-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854813509369
66. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (2011). Twenty-five years of Social Science in Law. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10979-009-9214-8
67. Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.724
68. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf
69. National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
70. Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 137-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1
71. Niedermeier, K. E., Horowitz, I. A., & Kerr, N. L. (1999). Informing jurors of their nullification power: A route to a just verdict or judicial chaos? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 331-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022360632283
72. Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kerr, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23-52). New York, NY: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615- 4891-1-2
73. Nuñez, N., McCoy, M. L., Clark, H. L., & Shaw, L. A. (1999). The testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror decisions: The importance of examining multiple stereotypes. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 413- 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022308014652
74. OConnor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melançon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 69-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e
75. Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 204-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.795816
76. Pew Research Center. (2013). American adults better educated than ever before. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/ american-adults-better-educated-than-ever-before/
77. Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 673-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1578
78. Reichert, J., Miller, M. K., Bornstein, B. H., & Shelton, H. D. (2011). How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: A comparison of students and jurors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 395-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ bsl.969
79. Roberts, C. F., & Golding, S. L. (1991). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02074076
80. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.86.3.638
81. Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, R. A. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 167-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01499353
82. Schwartz, S. L., & Hunt, J. S. (2011). Considering her circumstances: How ethnicity and cultural relativist arguments affect sexual harassment judgments by undergraduate and community mock jurors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 419-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.972
83. Schweitzer, K., Estrada, V., Ferguson, E., & Nuñez, N. (2016). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
84. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
85. Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law & Society Review, 5, 319-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3052837
86. Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (2001). Describing jurors personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 561-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1076-8971.7.3.561
87. Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.220
88. Smithson, M., Deady, S., & Gracik, L. (2007). Guilty, not guilty, or ⋯? Multiple options in jury verdict choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 481-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.572
89. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). "Race salience" in juror decision-making: Misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 599-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.877
90. Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080
91. Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7
92. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(74)90007-5
93. Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O., & Peterson, T. (2013). Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 359-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12013
94. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Postsecondary education. Digest of Education Statistics, 2013, 3.
95. Valentine, T., & Fitzgerald, R. A. (2016). Identifying the culprit: An international perspective on the National Academy of Sciences report on eyewitness identification evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 135-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3164
96. Warling, D., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2003). The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: The effects of defendants age on trial outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 63-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.517
97. Wiener, R. L., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2011). Mock jury research: Where do we go from here? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 467-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.989
98. Yelderman & Miller. (2016). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV.
99. Zickafoose, D. J., & Bornstein, B. H. (1999). Double discounting: The effects of comparative negligence on mock juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 577-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022300313628