Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

Abstract

This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

The Impact of Ethnicity, Immigration Status, and Socioeconomic Status on Juror Decision Making

“…Although the findings are consistent with earlier research on biased decision making and race disparities in incarceration, different outcomes may emerge with jury deliberations (Caprathe, 2011). The next step in elucidating the decision making surrounding ethnicity, immigration status, SES, and crime should expand to include closer approximations to the actual jury process (Wiener, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2011). The inclusion of research on bias and ethnicity, immigrant status, and SES with jury-based decision making would further cement researchers' understanding of the means by which immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, experience justice in the United States.…”

Explaining Gender Differences in Jurors' Reactions to Child Sexual Assault Cases

“…The question debated in the field of psychology and law is whether those aspects influence legal decision-making, or even decision-making in only certain types of cases (Bornstein, 1999;Diamond, 1997;Wiener, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2011). Compared with community members called for jury duty, undergraduate students are usually younger, of relatively high SES, have higher need for cognition (i.e., the extent to which people enjoy effortful thinking; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), and are less likely to be parents (McCabe, Krauss & Lieberman, 2010;Sears, 1986;Quas, Thompson, & Clarke-Stewart, 2005).…”

Religious Fundamentalism and Attitudes toward the Insanity Defense: The Mediating Roles of Criminal Attributions and Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill

“…The relationship between religious fundamentalism and insanity defense attitudes, mediated by attributions and authoritarian attitudes toward the mentally ill, should be tested in a community sample. This will help increase generalizability and test whether constructs and relationships between them manifest in the same way among community members as compared to college students (see McCabe, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2010;Miller, Wood, & Chomos, 2014;Wiener, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2011). Also, experimental designs should test whether manipulating religious cognitions, attributions, or authoritarian attitudes (e.g., through priming), influences perceptions of the insanity defense.…”