The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 86, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 641-652

  Horowitz, Irwin A ^b   Victor, Elizabeth ^c   Bordens, Kenneth S ^c   Bourgeois, Martin J ^c   ForsterLee, Lynne ^a  

^a CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOMENCLATURE; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SEMANTICS; TERMINOLOGY;

EID: 85047681627     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.641     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203-231.
2. Allison, S. T., Worth, L. E., & King, M. W. C. (1990). Group decisions as social inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.
3. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bennett, W. L. (1978). Storytelling in criminal trials: A model for social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 1-22.
5. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
6. Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). Abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350.
7. 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.
8. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
9. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States (1997). St. Paul, MN: West.
10. Helgeson, J. G., & Ursic, M. L. (1993). Information load, cost/benefit assessment and decision strategy variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 13-20.
11. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effect. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29-52.
12. Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2000). The consolidation of plaintiffs: The effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors' liability decisions, damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 909-918.
13. Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., Victor, E., Bourgeois, M., & ForsterLee, L. (1994). An explanation-based approach to jurors' performance in complex trials. Unpublished manuscript.
14. Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757-768.
15. In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, 675 F.2d. 207 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 929 (1983).
16. Jacoby, J., Speller, D. H., & Berning, C. K. (1974, June). Brand choice as a function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 33-42.
17. Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-100.
18. Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5, 289-296.
19. Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. J. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1, 297-342.
20. Lempert, R. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after twelve years. In R. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system (pp. 161-193). St. Paul, MN: West.
21. MacCoun, R. J. (1987). Getting inside the black box: Toward a better understanding of civil jury behavior. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, The Institute for Civil Justice.
22. Matlin, M. W. (1994). Cognition (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
23. Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 85-99.
24. Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
25. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49, 123-163.
26. Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of shared and unshared information during group discussions. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 123-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Wilhoite v. Olin Corp., No. CV-83-5021 NE (N.D. Ala. 1985).
28. Woehr, D. J., & Feldman, J. (1993). Processing objective and question order effects on the causal relation between memory and judgment in performance appraisal: The tip of the iceberg. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 232-241.