Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

被引:109
作者
Wiener, Richard L. [1 ]
Krauss, Daniel A. [2 ]
Lieberman, Joel D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, Dept Psychol, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA
[2] Claremont Mckenna Coll, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
[3] Univ Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA
关键词
DECISION-MAKING; JURORS; INSTRUCTIONS; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1002/bsl.989
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
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. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:467 / 479
页数:13
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, EXPT QUASIEXPERIMENT
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1979, Quasi-experimentation: Design analysis issues for field settings
[3]   The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? [J].
Bornstein, BH .
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1999, 23 (01) :75-91
[4]  
Bray R.M., 1979, LAW HUMAN BEHAV, V3, P107, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01039151
[5]   Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? [J].
Buhrmester, Michael ;
Kwang, Tracy ;
Gosling, Samuel D. .
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2011, 6 (01) :3-5
[6]   Commentary: Participant Differences and Validity of Jury Studies [J].
Caprathe, William J. .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, 2011, 29 (03) :328-330
[7]   JUROR DECISION-MAKING, ATTITUDES, AND THE HINDSIGHT BIAS [J].
CASPER, JD ;
BENEDICT, K ;
PERRY, JL .
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1989, 13 (03) :291-310
[8]   Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations [J].
Diamond, SS .
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1997, 21 (05) :561-571
[9]   A Comparison of Students' and Jury Panelists' Decision-making in Split Recovery Cases [J].
Fox, Paul ;
Wingrove, Twila ;
Pfeifer, Courtney .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, 2011, 29 (03) :358-375
[10]   Town vs. Gown: A Direct Comparison of Community Residents and Student Mock Jurors [J].
Hosch, Harmon M. ;
Culhane, Scott E. ;
Tubb, V. Anne ;
Granillo, Edgar A. .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, 2011, 29 (03) :452-466