Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors.

Vidmar, Neil

doi:10.1037/h0032605

Cited by 74 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is known as the severity-leniency hypothesis. Vidmar (1972) found that jurors have higher subjective standards for more serious or severe charges. This effect was more pronounced when the evidence supporting guilt was strong and virtually disappeared when the case for the prosecution was weak.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilty, not guilty, or …? multiple options in jury verdict choices

Smithson

Deady

Gracik

2007

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies investigate the role and impact of alternative verdicts to the conventional choice between conviction and acquittal. The primary focus is on the Not Proven option, with a lesser charge alternative included for comparisons. The results contradict a commonly held view that the Not Proven option attracts jurors away from returning a conviction. Instead, Not Proven more often supplants outright acquittals. Judged probabilities of guilt from jurors returning Not Proven are mid-range, in contrast to the markedly higher probabilities given by those returning conviction of a lesser charge (manslaughter) and lower probabilities from those returning an acquittal. Jurors returning Not Proven report greater decisional difficulty and conflict than those returning any other verdict, including conviction on a lesser charge. No direct evidence is found that third options function as a decision-avoidant alternative to conviction or acquittal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilty, not guilty, or …? multiple options in jury verdict choices

Smithson

Deady

Gracik

2007

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The juror surveys offered support for LRC recommendations that jurors be permitted to take notes and to ask questions of witnesses under carefully controlled conditions (Law Reform Commission of Canada 1980: 115-20). Tony Doob's early forays into juror simulation research, along with those of Neil Vidmar (1972), paved the way for others by demonstrating what might be gained by the experimental approach to studying the Canadian jury. Simulation remains especially valuable in Canada because the legal prohibition of disclosure of jury deliberations shuts off one promising line of investigation for learning about the jury.…”

Section: Contemporary Jury Research In Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…His ingenious study, inspired by an American jury trial, examined the effects of offering different numbers of verdict alternatives to mock jurors(Vidmar 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian Jury Research: The Contributions of Anthony N. Doob

Hans

2013

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1970s, when the Law Reform Commission of Canada undertook a comprehensive project on the Canadian jury, there was a dearth of empirical research on the topic. Anthony N. Doob's research studies on juror decision making, among the first to be conducted on questions of relevance to the Canadian jury, were innovative, legally astute, and valuable sources of information. They have served as important models for subsequent jury research in Canada.

show abstract

“…Some social scientists have extensive research programs on this topic. Relevant existing work includes a challenge to the Supreme Court decision allowing juries of less than 12 persons (Zeisel & Diamond, in press), studies of the jury system (Strodtbeck, James & Hawkins 1957;Kalven & Zeisel, 1966;Simon, 1966Simon, , 1967Sealy & Cornish, 1973), extensive use of jury simulations (Landy & Aronson, 1969;Mitchell & Byrne, 1973;Vidmar, 1972); discussions of the effects of testimony on jury bias (Rokeach & Vidmar, 1973); work on criminal identification (reviewed by Levin & Tapp, 1973); and work on the process and effects of confessions (Bem, 1966;Zimbardo, 1967).…”

Section: Aclu Question 3 the Concept Of A Fair Trial Includes The Idementioning

confidence: 99%