Does Trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony

Abstract

This study assesses whether mock jurors' perceptions of eyewitness expert testimony vary based on the level of ecological validity-video or transcript trial presentation medium. In Experiment 1, 496 jury-eligible mock jurors were presented a simulated trial. Each served in one condition in a 3 (no expert or eyewitness expert either with or without prosecution rebuttal witness) Â 2 (trial presentation medium: Video or transcript) design. Participants were generally less certain of the defendant's guilt after the eyewitness expert testimony, and affective and cognitive ratings of the expert testimony were higher in the transcript than video condition. However, there were no significant interactions of modality with expert conditions, thus reducing concerns that jury simulation research must be conducted with live or video trials to be externally valid. Findings were replicated in Experiment 2 using the testimony of a different eyewitness expert rated to have a more dynamic communication style.

Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research

“…However, results did not support the prediction that racial issues would be perceived as more salient for a video as compared to a transcript of a trial with a Black defendant. Supporting previous research demonstrating negligible differences between transcripts and videos (Pezdek et al, 2010 ), there were few significant differences in witness or defendant likeability, credibility, or perceived influence on verdict between the two stimulus types. One difference emerged for the police officer, who was perceived more positively in the transcript condition.…”

Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect

“…Though the use of transcripts does not necessarily represent the real world trial process, a review of jury research (Bornstein 1999) that has investigated the differences between different modalities of presentation has discovered little difference between research using trial transcripts and studies using other modes of presentation (e.g., audiotaped trials, video, live presentation). In addition, a study testing the effects of modality of presentation in trials involving expert testimony found no interaction between the expert testimony conditions and modality (Pezdek, Avila-Mora, and Sperry 2010), suggesting that our use of a transcript does not justify dismissing our findings.…”

Secondary confessions: The influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony.

“…Some may argue that this lowers the ecological validity of the research. However, a study testing the effects of modality of presentation in trials involving expert testimony found no interaction between the expert testimony conditions and modality (Pezdek et al, 2010), suggesting that our findings are not easily dismissed as a result of the use of a transcript.…”