The ability of a civil jury to render fair and rational decisions in complex trials has been questioned. However, the nature, dimensions, and effects of trial complexity on decision making have rarely been addressed. In this research, jury-eligible adults saw a videotape of a complex civil trial that varied in information load and complexity of the language of the witnesses. Information load and complexity differentially affected liability and compensatory decisions. An increase in the number of plaintiffs decreased blameworthiness assigned to the defendant despite contrary evidence and amount of probative evidence processed. Complex language did not affect memory but did affect jurors' ability to appropriately compensate differentially worthy plaintiffs. Jurors assigned compensatory awards commensurate with the plaintiffs' injuries only under low-load and less complex language conditions.
Forty-eight jury-eligible adults heard 1 of 4 versions of a tort trial. The design combined high and moderate levels of evidence technicality and the placement of substantive judicial instructions either before or after evidence presentation. Jurors given instructions before hearing the evidence for liability and before the evidence for compensation made clear distinctions among 4 differentially worthy plaintiffs, whereas jurors instructed after evidence presentation were not able to distinguish among the plaintiffs. Preinstructions enabled jurors to devise a causal model, as measured by both verbal representation of the evidence and recognition tests, that contained more probative evidence and less nonprobative and evaluative information than the models constructed by jurors who were postinstructed. Preinstructed jurors were better able than postinstructed jurors to correctly reject recognition items not part of the trial text and to correctly identify items from the trial.
The effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on sentencing and information processing were examined within the context of a murder trial. A sample consisting of 96, jury eligible White Australians read one of four versions of a real trial transcript, in which the race of a male defendant and female victim were varied. The participants imposed the severest sentences on the Indigenous (Black) defendant. Jurors were most lenient with White defendants who killed a White victim. Female jurors were more punitive than the males toward the Indigenous defendant. Jurors processed evidence systematically in same-race trials, but used both systematic and heuristic processing in mixed-race trials. In these instances, female jurors employed significantly more emotive responses, especially when the victim was Black. The effects of subtle racism and the black processing effect when the victim was non-White are considered.
This study examined the effects of a victim impact statement (VIS) and gender on decision‐making. A total of 238 jury‐eligible participants from the community were randomly assigned to one of eight versions of a heinous murder trial, based on a real case. Half the participants received a VIS, while the remainder did not. In addition, the design manipulated offender and victim gender. When no VIS was presented, male defendants received harsher sentences than females. The inclusion of the VIS decreased the disparity, resulting in a more severe sentence for the female, while the male offender's sentence was unaffected. The harsher sentence appeared to be the result of an increase in the perceived deviancy (as measured by volition and future dangerousness) of the female offender, due to the VIS. This interpretation was supported by the higher ratings of “anger” against the female defendant when the VIS was included. The sentences rendered by male jurors were predicted by the ratings of “future dangerousness”, “volition”, and the VIS, whereas the sentencing of females was predicted only by future dangerousness and volition scores. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than n0nnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.