Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Juror Decision Making (juror + decision_making)
Selected AbstractsThe Influence of Identification Decision and DNA Evidence on Juror Decision Making,JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 9 2009Joanna D. Pozzulo This study examined the influence of identification decision type and DNA evidence on mock jurors' ratings of evidence reliability, witness credibility, and verdict decisions. Type of identification decision was found to influence jurors' perceptions of the reliability of eyewitnesses' descriptions of various details related to the crime. Specifically, positive identifications resulted in the highest reliability ratings. Type of DNA evidence presented was found to impact on ratings of expert witness reliability. Overall, inconsistent DNA evidence that was statistical in nature resulted in the lowest reliability ratings. DNA-consistent evidence led to more convictions than did DNA-inconsistent evidence. Furthermore, jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when witnesses made a non-identification or a positive identification, as compared to a foil identification. [source] Individual Differences in Attitudes Relevant to Juror Decision Making: Development and Validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ),JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 8 2008Len Lecci This study involves scale development using theoretically derived items from previous measures and a lay consensual approach for generating new items. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the emergent constructs assessing individual differences in attitudes of prospective jurors. Using case summaries, the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ) demonstrates superior predictive validity over commonly employed measures of pretrial bias. The PJAQ confirms the importance of theoretically derived constructs assessed by other scales and introduces new constructs to the jury decision-making literature. The attitudes assessed by the PJAQ are conviction proneness, system confidence, cynicism toward the defense, racial bias, social justice, and innate criminality. Implications for assessing such attitudes and for better understanding the decision-making process of jurors are discussed. [source] An Aiibi Witness' Influence on Mock Jurors' Verdicts,JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 8 2004Scott E. Culhane The impact of alibi testimony on juror decision making is not yet clear because it has been examined empirically infrequently. This study was designed to determine the impact of alibi witness' testimony, the impact of an alibi witness with a relationship in comparison to one without a relationship to the defendant, and the impact of an eyewitness' confidence on juror decision making. Results indicated that mock jurors acquit a defendant more often when an alibi witness with no relationship to the defendant testified on his behalf. Participants did not believe an alibi witness who had a relationship with the defendant even though the witness was not a family member. Implications for these results are discussed. [source] Evidence coverage and argument skills: cognitive factors in a juror's verdict choiceJOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, Issue 3 2004Michael P. Weinstock Abstract Juror reasoning and verdict choice have been explored variously as functions of argument skill and the overall story representation of the evidence on which verdict choices are based. This study investigates the proportion of testimony covered in the justification of a verdict choice and its relationship with argument skill, narrative explanation or evidence-based argument, and certainty about verdict choice. Each of these variables was also compared with the verdict choice. People serving jury duty justified verdict choices in two abridged jury trials. Individuals were consistent in the relative amount of evidence used in both trials. Argument skills, evidence evaluation type, and evidence synthesis type all accounted for variance in the amount of evidence covered. Evidence coverage, along with argument skills, predicted verdict choice. As expected, those most certain about verdict choice did not use the most evidence. Implications regarding mediating factors in story construction and juror decision making are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision makingAPPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2010Bianca Klettke Psychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty-four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||