Effects of Presentation Mode Upon Mock Jurors' Reactions to a Trial

Abstract

A criminal trial was presented to male and female undergraduates in one of four modes: videotape, audiotape, transcript, or summary. Significant differences in verdicts and in perceptions of the effectiveness of attorneys' presentations were observed across modes, but no differences in perceptions of witnesses were noted.

From Compassion to Compensation: The Effect of Injury Severity on Mock Jurors' Liability Judgments1

“…Although the manipulation of injury severity might have stood out more in the brief experimental descriptions than it would have in a richer, more complex trial, little research has been conducted on the effect of using simulations with varying degrees of verisimilitude, and that which has been done offers conflicting results (e.g., Bermant, McGuire, McKinley, & Salo, 1974;Juhnke et al, 1979). Importantly, even if a simulation's verisimilitude did have a consistent main effect (e.g., a greater proportion of plaintiff verdicts in more realistic trials), it does not necessarily follow that this variable would interact with other variables of interest (cf.…”

Prejudice in a simulated legal context: A further application of social identity theory

“…In addition, several methodological shortcomings associated with simulation design studies limit, to some extent, the generalizability of our results. Several psycholegal theorists (Juhnke, Vought, Pyszczynski, Dane, Losure and Wrightsman, 1979;Miller, 1976;Williams, Farmer, Lee, Cundick, Howell and Rooker, 1975) have argued that the presentation mode affects the response outcomes of simulated jurors. For example, Miller (1976) found that a videotape of a simulated court trial produces more similar outcomes to a real court trial than does a paper and pencil measure.…”

Experimental Research on Jury Decision-Making

“…Other studies have examined the effects of the frequent use of college students as mock jurors, finding little or no difference in comparisons of verdicts by student and adult jury-eligible respondents for the same cases (10,11). There is some evidence that simulated trial presentations might artificially exaggerate the impact of experimentally manipulated variables, particularlv defendant characteristics (12). But mock jurors do not appear to reach decisions by a fundamentally different process than actual jurors (8,13).…”