Literature DB >> 27762572

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

Brian H Bornstein1, Jonathan M Golding2, Jeffrey Neuschatz3, Christopher Kimbrough1, Krystia Reed1, Casey Magyarics2, Katherine Luecht3.   

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27762572     DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Law Hum Behav        ISSN: 0147-7307


  7 in total

1.  Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test.

Authors:  Angela M Jones; Amanda N Bergold; Steven Penrod
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-02-13

2.  The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Neuschatz; Danielle K DeLoach; Megan A Hillgartner; Melanie B Fessinger; Stacy A Wetmore; Amy B Douglass; Brian H Bornstein; Alexis M Le Grand
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-11-10

3.  Perceptions of familiar and unfamiliar ear- and eyewitnesses.

Authors:  Madison B Harvey; Kaila C Bruer; Heather L Price
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2021-07-13

4.  Credibility assessments of alibi accounts: the role of cultural intergroup bias.

Authors:  Nir Rozmann; Galit Nahari
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2021-07-19

5.  Actor-observer asymmetry in perceptions of parole board release decisions.

Authors:  Logan A Yelderman; Timothy I Lawrence; Courtney E Lyons; Alicia DeVault
Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law       Date:  2020-12-07

6.  Individual versus group decision making: Jurors' reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony.

Authors:  Jessica M Salerno; Bette L Bottoms; Liana C Peter-Hagene
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The effect of different imaging techniques for the visualisation of evidence in court on jury comprehension.

Authors:  D Errickson; H Fawcett; T J U Thompson; A Campbell
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.686

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.