Se han encontrado resultados contradictorios acerca de los posibles sesgos de origen psicológico en la toma de decisiones de los jurados legos. Posiblemente la causa de tales diferencias radique en que en las revisiones no se ha controlado ni el tipo de caso presentado al jurado ni la cantidad de evidencia. En estudios nuestros (Arce, 1989) cuando presentamos casos filmados en vídeo a jurados homogéneos en perfiles psicosociales, encontramos que tales perfiles predecían sesgos en unos casos pero no en otros. Además, eran las condiciones de homogeneidad las que constituían tales sesgos en significativos a través del condicionamiento del contenido de la interacción grupal(Arce, Sobraly Fariña, 1990).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArceR. (1989). Perfiles psicosociales, veredictos y deliberación en Jurados legos. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
2.
ArceR.FariñaF. (1995). El estudio del jurado: Capacitación psicológica, selección y representatividad. EnClementeM. (Ed.), Fundamentos de la Psicología Jurídica.Madrid: Pirámide.
3.
ArceR.FariñaF.VilaC.RealS. (1994). Jury selection procedures. A new approach. XXIIIth International Congress of IAAP, Madrid.
4.
ArceR.SobralJ.FariñaF. (1990). Attribution and deliberation style. 2nd European Conference on Law and Psychology, Nürnberg.
BemD.J.AllenA. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520.
7.
BergK.S.VidmarN. (1975). Authoritarism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 147–157.
8.
BoehmV. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Symphaty and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measurement to the problem of jury bias.Wiscosin Law Review, 734–750.
9.
BrayR.NobleA. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424–1430.
10.
BroederD. (1965). Voir dire examination: An empirical study. Southern California Law Review, 38, 503–528.
11.
BuckhoutR. (1973). Jury without peers (CR-2).Brooklyn: Center for Responsive Psychology.
12.
BuckhoutR.AlexanderM.GambardellaJ.EugenioP.KakoullisB. (1979). Discretion in jury selection. EnAbtL.E.StuartR. (eds.), Social Psychology and discretionary law.Nueva York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
13.
DaneF.WrighstmanL. (1982). Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts. EnKerrN.L.BrayR.M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom.Nueva York: Academic Press.
14.
FeildH.S. (1978). Juror background characteristics and attitudes toward rape: Correlates of jurors' decisions in rape trials. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 73–93.
15.
HamiltonV.L. (1978). Obedience and responsability: A jury simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 126–146.
16.
HastieR.PenrodS.PennningtonN. (1983). Inside the Jury.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
17.
HepburnJ.R. (1980). The objetive reality of evidence and the utility of systematic jury selection. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 89–102.
18.
HewstoneM.AntakiCh. (1990). La teoría de la atribución y explicaciones sociales. EnHewstoneM.StroebeW.CodolJ.P.StephensonG.M. (1990), Introducción a la psicología social.Barcelona: Ariel.
19.
HoffmanL.R. (1965). Group problem solving. EnBerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.Nueva York: Academic Press.
20.
JurrowG.L. (1971). New data on the effect of a «death qualified» jury on the guilt determination process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 567–611.
21.
KaplanM.F. (1979). A model of cognitive processes in jurors. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 10, 48–60.
22.
KaplanM. (1989). Factores psicológicos en la conducta de jurados. EnGarzónA. (Ed.), Psicología y justicia.Valencia: Promolibro.
23.
KaplanM.F.MillerJ.H. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.
24.
KauffmanR.A.RyckmanR.M. (1979). Effects of locus-of-control, outcome severity and attitudinal similarity of defendant on attributions of criminal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 340–343.
25.
KerrN.L.AtkinR.S.StasserG.MeekD.HoltR.V.DavisJ.H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reazonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the jugdments of mock juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (2), 282–294.
26.
LempertR.O. (1975). Civil juries and complex cases: Let's not rush to judgment. Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.
27.
LevensonH. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerfull, others and change. EnLefcourtH.M. (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct. Vol. 1: Assessment methods.Nueva York: Academic Press.
28.
MaltonR.J.DavisJ.W. (1986). Factors affecting jury decision-making. Social Action and the Law, 12 (2), 41–48.
29.
MitchellH.E. (1972). Authoritarian punitiveness in simulated jurors decision-making: The good guys don't always wear white hats. Manuscrito presentado al Meeting de la Midwestern Psychlogical Association, Chicago.
30.
PenrodS. (1980). Evaluating social scientific methods of jury selection. Meeting of Midwestern Association, St. Louis.
31.
PenrodS. (1990). Predictors of jury decision making in criminal and civil cases: A field experiment. Forensic Reports, 3 (3), 261–277.
32.
PenrodS.HastieR. (1983). Individual differences among jurors. EnHastieR.PenrodS.PenningtonN. (Eds.), Inside the jury.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
33.
PharesE.WilsonK. (1972). Responsability attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 392–496.
34.
ReutermanN.A. (1975). A measure of attitudes toward juvenile delinquency. Manuscrito no Publicado. Delinquency Study Center. Southern Illinois University, Illinois.
35.
RokeachM. (1960). The open and closed mind.Nueva York: Basic Book Inc.
36.
RumseyM.G.RumseyJ.M. (1977). A case of rape: Sentencing judgments of males and females. Psychological Reports, 41, 459–465.
37.
SáinzE.SáinzJ. (1989). Estrat&egias de decisión de un jurado bajo condiciones de simulación. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 42 (4), 509–523.
SaksM.J.HastieR. (1986). Social psychology in court.Malabar, Florida: Robert Krieger Publishing Company.
40.
ScroggsJ.R. (1976). Penalties of rapes as a function of victim provocativeess, damage and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 360–368.
41.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.
42.
SobralJ.ArceR.FariñaF. (1989). Aspectos psicosociales de las decisiones judiciales. Revisión y lectura diferenciada. Boletín de Psicología, 25, 25–74.
43.
SosisR. (1974). Internal-external control and the perception of responsability and another for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 393–399.
44.
TanfordS.PenrodS. (1986). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and the influence processes in Jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 (4), 322–347.
45.
StasserG. (1977). A model of social influence during group discussion: An application with four- and six-person mock juries. Disertación doctoral no publicada. Universidad de Illinois.
VidmarN. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.
48.
VidmarN.CrinklawL. (1973). Retribution and utility as motives of sanctioning behavior. Comunicación presentada a la Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago.
49.
WilsonG.D. (1973). The Psychology of conservatism.Nueva York: Academic Press.
50.
ZeiselH. (1971)…. and then there was none: The diminution of federal jury. University of Chicago Law Review, 35, 228–241.
