Juries

Nietzel, Michael T.; McCarthy, Denis M.; Kern, Monica J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_2

Cited by 38 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, there have generally been no significant differences between the use of undergraduates versus a more representative sample of potential jurors (who deliberated after being presented with a trial scenario) in previous investigations of child eyewitness testimony (e.g., Goodman, Golding, Hedges, Haith, & Michelli, 1987). Third, in research involving other types of criminal cases, no significant differences have been found between the use of this type of subject sample and a more representative sample of potential jurors (Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990; Nietzel, McCarthy, & Harris, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.

Golding¹,

Sanchez²,

Sego³

1997

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.

Golding¹,

Sanchez²,

Sego³

1997

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A number of characteristics make a jury study more or less naturalistic: a rich trial stimulus, real-world dependent measures (e.g., a dichotomous verdict), applicable jury instructions, group deliberation, consequentiality (i.e., a decision with real consequences for the affected parties), and a diverse sample of mock jurors. Previous research has addressed the relationship between many of these methodological variables and mock jurors’ verdicts, but without much in the way of conclusive results (for review, see Bornstein, 1999; Bornstein & McCabe, 2005; Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying, & Pryce, 2001; Diamond, 1997; Kovera, 2017; Nietzel, McCarthy, & Kerr, 1999). A high degree of verisimilitude might look better, especially to judges, lawyers, and other policymakers, but it is still unclear whether, and to what extent, it affects the integrity of the research findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bornstein

Golding

Neuschatz

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…As in most mock juror studies, this was done to allow for the manipulation of the variables of interest while avoiding the practical and ethical problems inherent in studying these variables in a courtroom. The participants in the present study were eligible to serve as jurors, and previous research on child eyewitness testimony (e.g., Goodman, Golding, Helgeson, Haith, & Michelli, 1987) and other criminal cases (Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990; Nietzel, McCarthy, & Harris, 1994) has generally found no differences between an undergraduate sample and a more representative sample of mock jurors. Nonetheless, the present participants were not fully representative of actual jurors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%