What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity

Keller, Stacie Ranae; Wiener, Richard L.

doi:10.1002/bsl.971

Cited by 42 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research in this area should ideally use community, rather than student, samples (see Keller & Wiener, 2011;McCabe, Krauss, & Lieberman, 2010). In this sample, racial attitudes were neutral and not particularly variable, which may account for the lack of findings with regards to racial attitudes.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial

Maeder

Yamamoto

Saliba

2014

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has examined separately the influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in sexual assault trials. The current study sought to examine the combined effects of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness in a trial of alleged acquaintance sexual assault. Mock jurors read a trial transcript in which the defendant race and victim physical attractiveness were manipulated via photographs. Results demonstrated that women were not influenced by victim attractiveness, but that men were more certain of the defendant guilt when the victim was unattractive. Defendant race and victim attractiveness interacted with regards to victim responsibility ratings -when the defendant was White, attractive victims were rated as more responsible for the alleged assault than unattractive victims; this effect was reversed for trials with a Black defendant and nonexistent for trials with an Aboriginal Canadian defendant.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial

Maeder

Yamamoto

Saliba

2014

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Keller and Wiener () (the third paper) switched focus to criminal jurors and examined the differences between students and jury‐eligible community members in their evaluations of culpability for highly emotional charges brought against defendants whom the state accused of either homicide or sexual assault. They found that the interaction of jury attitudes and type of sample produced very different results for both types of cases and inasmuch, documented how sample type can limit the generalizability of juror attributes in predicting case outcomes.…”

Section: Seven Treatises On Construct and External Validity In Jury Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

Wiener

Krauss

Lieberman

2011

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

126

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the current study procedure relied upon validating the JDS within the context of an English mock rape trial utilising a sample consisting of both community and student mock jurors. With debate surrounding the generalisability of student samples within jury research and studies reporting differences in both attitudes and cognitive processing styles in student as opposed to community samples (for competing reviews see Keller &Weiner, 2011 andBornstein et al, 2017), future explorations should see researchers seek to replicate the validation of the JDS within a more representative sample. Thus, to ensure the scale's utility as an accurate assessment of certainty principle processing applicable to genuine juror decision making, future samples should be drawn from electoral voting and driver registration registers adopting the same process in which trial jurors are drawn.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction and validation of the Juror Decision Scale (JDS): An empirical investigation of the Story Model

Willmott

Boduszek

Debowska

et al. 2018

Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To develop and validate a self-report measure of individual juror decision making within criminal trials, based on theoretical features set out in the Story Model of juror decision making. Methods: The Juror Decision Scale (JDS) and Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) measure were completed by 324 jury-eligible participants split across 27 jury panels, after observing a rape trial re-enactment high in ecological validity. Dimensionality and construct validity of the JDS was investigated using traditional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques alongside confirmatory bifactor analysis at two time points (individual juror verdict decisions pre-and post-deliberation). Three competing models of the JDS were specified and tested using Mplus with maximum likelihood robust estimation. Results: Bifactor model with three meaningful factors (complainant believability, defendant believability, decision confidence) was the best fit for the data at both decision points. Good composite reliability and differential predictive validity were observed for the three JDS subscales. Conclusion: Alongside demonstrating its multidimensional conceptualisation, the JDS development permits future empirical testing of the Story Model theoretical assertions surrounding juror decision making. Present findings also provide early evidence of a certainty principle assessment process governing individual verdict decision formation. Theoretical and practical applications are discussed.

show abstract

What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity

Cited by 42 publications

References 42 publications

The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial

The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial

Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

Introduction and validation of the Juror Decision Scale (JDS): An empirical investigation of the Story Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About