Jury simulation studies: To exclude or not to exclude participants based on a lack of comprehension of the case?

Cullen, Hayley Joanne; Monds, Lauren A.

doi:10.1002/acp.3695

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further 29.8% of participants were unable to correctly recall the victim's intoxication status. Cullen and Monds (2020) advise against excluding mock jurors based on poor memory, as real jurors often cannot recall trial information. These participants therefore remained in the analyses to benefit ecological validity.…”

Section: Sample Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of victim intoxication and crime type on mock jury decision-making

Martin

Monds

2023

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alcohol intoxication is a common feature in crime, yet jurors often possess little understanding of how alcohol affects eyewitness memory. Furthermore, jurors are often blind to biases about different crimes that affect their interpretation of eyewitness evidence.Accordingly, the current study investigated the impact of (1) a victim's intoxication status during a crime and (2) the type of crime committed on mock jury decision-making.Undergraduate students (N = 228) read a trial transcript describing a rape or robbery committed against a woman who was either sober or intoxicated to a low, moderate, or severe degree when the crime occurred. They also completed questionnaires assessing trial-related judgements, alcohol beliefs, behaviours and familiarity, and sexist attitudes towards women.Mock jurors incorrectly perceived alcohol as detrimental to the victim's credibility at any dose. However, the victim's intoxication status failed to influence verdict decisions. Verdicts were instead better accounted for by extra-legal factors such as gender, ethnicity, and alcohol-related beliefs. Variance in jury decision-making according to crime type was not observed. These null findings may be the product of methodological constraints rather than genuine non-effects, and thus further research is required. The current study asserts the need for jury education to correct misconceptions about the effects of alcohol on eyewitness memory, and continued exploration of the role of extra-legal factors in intoxication-related cases.

show abstract

Section: Sample Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of victim intoxication and crime type on mock jury decision-making

Martin

Monds

2023

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If they answered yes, they were asked three follow-up questions regarding who was intoxicated (bystander, victim, suspect, no one), what substance they were intoxicated by (no intoxication, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines), and the level of intoxication (no intoxication, mild, moderate, severe). Based on the recommendations of Cullen and Monds (2020), these manipulation questions were not asked as a basis for exclusion given that jurors are likely to fail to remember or misremember case facts in real trials (Thorley et al, 2020). Instead, responses to the questions were statistically analyzed to determine whether memory for manipulated details differed depending on the experimental condition.…”

Section: Manipulation and Memory Checksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juror Perceptions of Bystander and Victim Intoxication by Different Substances

Dilevski,

Cullen,

van Golde

et al. 2024

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of bystander or victim intoxication during a crime on juror perceptions and decision-making. Mock jurors ( N = 261) read testimony from a bystander or victim to an assault, who mentioned that they had consumed alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, or no substances prior to the crime. Participants delivered a verdict, rated the defendant’s guilt, and rated the bystander/victim on their honesty, credibility, and cognitive competence. Witness intoxication and witness role did not influence defendant guilt. However, participants judged any witness intoxicated by amphetamines as less credible and cognitively competent than a sober witness. Furthermore, victims were judged to have lower credibility, cognitive competence, and honesty than bystanders. These findings suggest that jurors’ decision-making about defendant guilt might not be influenced by witness intoxication or witness type. A witness’ testimony, however, might be evaluated as less credible when delivered by a victim or an amphetamine-intoxicated witness.

show abstract

“…Finally, we acknowledge that data quality may have also been hindered by the number of excluded participants based on failed attention and manipulation checks (AMCs) and the source of the sample. Loss of data due to failed AMCs is not uncommon in this field and others (Abbey & Meloy, 2017;Cullen & Monds, 2020;Ruva & Sykes, 2022;Salerno et al, 2021). Scholars have debated the use of AMCs, with some evidence suggesting they improve data quality (Abbey & Meloy, 2017;Shamon & Berning 2020) and others suggesting the opposite (Anduiza & Galais, 2017;Aronow et al, 2019).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Battling bias: can two implicit bias remedies reduce juror racial bias?

Ruva

Sykes

Smith

et al. 2022

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies examined the effectiveness of the Unconscious Bias Juror (UBJ) video and instructions at reducing racial bias in Black and White mock-jurors' decisions, perceptions, and counterfactual endorsement in a murder (Study 1; N = 554) and battery (Study 2; N = 539) trial.Participants viewed the UBJ video or not, then read pretrial instructions (general or UBJ), a trial summary, and posttrial instructions (general or UBJ). In Study 1, juror race moderated the effect of defendant race on verdicts, culpability, and credibility. White, but not Black, jurors demonstrated greater leniency toward Black defendants for verdicts, culpability, and credibility.The UBJ video moderated the effect of defendant race on murder counterfactual endorsement.Only when the video was absent was jurors' counterfactual endorsement higher for the White versus Black defendant, which mediated the effect of defendant race on White jurors' verdicts. In Study 2, White jurors were more lenient regardless of defendant race. Instructions and juror race moderated the video's effect on credibility ratings. The video only influenced Black jurors' credibility ratings. In conclusion, the debiasing interventions were ineffective in reducing racial bias in jurors' verdicts. However, they do impact aspects of juror attribution and may be effective with modification.

show abstract

Jury simulation studies: To exclude or not to exclude participants based on a lack of comprehension of the case?

Cited by 14 publications

References 65 publications

The effect of victim intoxication and crime type on mock jury decision-making

The effect of victim intoxication and crime type on mock jury decision-making

Juror Perceptions of Bystander and Victim Intoxication by Different Substances

Battling bias: can two implicit bias remedies reduce juror racial bias?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About