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

Abstract

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

Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making

“…First, our sample was limited to college students. Although prior research suggests that college students and other groups respond comparatively to mock trial stimuli (Bornstein, ; Bornstein et al, ), our sample's levels of education are likely to be associated with high levels of numeracy and less of a range in numeracy levels. However, both mean subjective and objective numeracy and standard deviations in these measures were comparable with unpublished results obtained in a community sample completing the same numeracy measures described in this paper (available from the fourth author) (ObjectiveNumeracy Community, M = 11.67, SD = 2.58; ObjectiveNumeracy StudySample M = 12.26, SD = 2.39; SubjectiveNumeracy Community, M = 37.33, SD = 7.65; SubjectiveNumeracy StudySample M = 32.71, SD = 7.60).…”

Trial by Social Media

“…Mock jury studies involve participants acting as jurors and are used to research aspects of the judicial system where it is not possible or ethical to conduct research using jurors involved in real criminal investigations. Although mock jury studies have contributed much to the understanding of the judicial system, they have received some criticism, relating to low ecological validity (O'Connell, 1988), however recent reviews argue that they can produce valid and reliable findings (Bornstein, Golding, Neuschatz, Kimbrough, Reed, Magyarics, & Luecht, 2017).…”

“…As with other mock jury studies, there are some methodological issues regarding their ecological validity (Bornstein et al, 2017) and this study was limited in group size and makeup. In the United Kingdom juries are comprised of 12 members, while this study used 6 member juries and group size can significantly affect decision-making.…”

From Meaning to Money: Translating Injury into Dollars

“…Our sample was limited to college students, and although some prior research reassures us that college students and other groups often respond comparably to mock trial stimuli (Bornstein, 2017;Bornstein, Golding, Neuschatz, Kimbrough, Reed, Magyarics, & Luecht, 2017), we believe it is important to test the theoretical predictions with broader samples in the future. Because of the potential impact of numeracy, we think it is especially important to study samples with broader ranges of subjective and objective numeracy.…”