The Judgments of College Students and Jurors Concerning Sanity and Guilt of an Alleged Murderer

Hinkle, Andrew Lee; Smeltzer, Donald J.; Allen, Cynthia A.; King, Glen D.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1983.9713219

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also germane to the present study is that previous mock juror research showed student and jury samples as equally persuaded by expert witnesses (Hinkle, Smeltzer, Allen, & King, 1983). …”

Section: Justifying Use Of Mock Jurorsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used a Self-Efficacy Theory (SET; Bandura, 1977Bandura, , 1986 framework to address the need for an outcome measure in witness preparation training. The construct of Witness Self-Efficacy, broadly defined as a witness's perceived ability to testify in court, was developed drawing largely on existing self-efficacy literature. The goal of the study was to establish initial psychometric properties for the Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES).Participants acting either as mock witnesses or jurors took part in a two-phase study.First, 41 mock witnesses were asked to provide a written account of being falsely accused of an act. They were then briefly deposed about the account, and completed the WSES and construct validity questionnaires. Mock witnesses finally testified under cross-examination from a mock attorney about the accusations. In the second portion, a total of 290 mock jurors (six to eight per group) observed videotaped testimonies of participants from phase one. Mock jurors then provided predictive validity ratings of witness credibility, believability, innocence likelihood, efficacy, and agreement with testimony.Bi-variate correlation analyses showed that the WSES was significantly positively related with general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and general self-confidence. The WSES was significantly negatively related to introversion. The scale displayed non-significant relations with social desirability, depression, self-esteem, and innocence expectancy. Multivariate regression analyses showed that the scale failed to predict any of the primary mock juror ratings.Follow-up multivariate regression analyses showed that mock juror ratings of witness confidence iii and the WSES predicted dependent measures, although these independent variables were collinear. Finally, there was an interaction between self and observer ratings of the WSES as it predicted witness credibility.Results are discussed with regard to theoretical and applied implications. Contrary to SET, self-reported WSE appears to be largely correlated with confidence and fails to predict outcomes on its own. Concerning witness preparation, the WSES possesses solid construct validity and reliability, but requires further testing within a witness preparation training model to assess its practical utility. A self-efficacy based method of witness preparation is proposed as a manner of continued research using the WSES.

show abstract

“…Also germane to the present study is that previous mock juror research showed student and jury samples as equally persuaded by expert witnesses (Hinkle, Smeltzer, Allen, & King, 1983). …”

Section: Justifying Use Of Mock Jurorsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

Cramer

Neal

DeCoster

et al. 2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Efforts were made t o provide mock jurors with the types of experiences faced by actual jurors, but caution dictates that the results of this study can only be viewed as suggestive. But, it should be noted, recent research does suggest that mock jury studies, using college students as jurors, yield results which are parallel to the results of studies which have used actual venire pools (Hinkle, Smeltzer, Allen, & King, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

The Impact of the Guilty but Mentally III Verdict on Juror Decisions: An Empirical Analysis

Savitsky

Lindblom

1986

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study attempted to determine the impact of alternative verdict choices on the decisions of mock jurors. Subjects used in this study as mock jurors were all college undergraduates. They were shown one of two versions of a videotaped simulated murder trial. Both films presented a defendant who appeared to be suffering emotional difficulties, but in one film the defendant had clearly committed the act while in the other film the defendant's actions were less certain. Subjects than gave their individual verdicts and, after deliberation with other subjects, a total jury verdict. The verdicts available to the subjects varied across three conditions such that the subjects in one condition were only allowed to find the defendant to be innocent or guilty. In another condition the subjects could find the defendant innocent, guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). In the third condition the subjects were allowed to choose between innocent, guilty, NGRI, and guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). The results indicated that the addition of the “mental health” verdicts had a significant impact on the decisions of the jurors. In particular, it appears that only defendants who would otherwise have been found innocent were likely to be found NGRI. This study also indicated that the GBMI verdict is very attractive to mock jurors. Indeed, even innocent defendants were found to be GBMI, a form of guilt, when this alternative was made available. These findings raise potentially important constitutional and practical issues for the trial of emotionally disturbed criminal defendants.

show abstract

“…In their study, the adult voters possessed more stereotypes of battered women than did the students. In terms of decisions regarding insanity, Hinkle et al (1983) found that college students were more lenient than jury samples in their verdicts. Thus, the significant results of this study With a student sample may actually be a conservative estimate of the significance of reputation and behavior variables of battered women defendants than it would be for jurors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%