Widespread use of simulated trials and mock juries to study jury behavior has stimulated concern for the external validity ofsuch simulations. A study is reported which examined the role-playing nature of mock jury deliberation. Subjects were either given typical role-playing instructions, or were led to believe that they were deciding an actual student discipline case. The two conditions did not differ significantly on their group or individual verdicts, sentence recommendations, deliberation time, or estimated social decision schemes. The significance and limitations of these results for the study of jury behavior are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, E. and J.M. Carlsmith (1969) "Experimentation in social psychology," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Bray, R. (1974) "Decision rules, attitude similarity, and jury decision making." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois .
3.
Cohen, J. (1969) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . New York: Academic Press.
4.
Davis, J.H. (1973) "Group decision and social interaction: a theory of social decision schemes." Psychological Rev. 80: 97-125.
5.
———, Bray, R.M. and R. Holt (1977) "The empirical study of social decision processes in juries," in J. Tapp and F. Levine (eds.) Law, Justice, and the Individual in Society: Psychological and Legal Issues. New York: Holt.
6.
Davis, J.H., N.L. Kerr, G. Stasser, D. Meek, and R. Holt (1977) "Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance18: 346-365.
7.
Davis, J.H., N.L. Kerr, R.S. Atkin, R. Holt, and D. Meek (1975) "The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and 2/3 majority decision rules." J. of Personality and Social Psychology32: 1-14.
8.
Diamond, S. and H. Zeisel (1974) "A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision making." Presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, New Orleans.
9.
Fienberg, S. (1970) "The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables ." Ecology51: 419-433.
10.
Greenwald, A. (1975) "Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis ." Psychological Bull.82: 1-20.
11.
Kalven, H. and H. Zeisel (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
12.
Kerr, N.L., R.S. Atkin, G. Stasser, D. Meek, R.W. Holt, and J.H. Davis (1976) "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors." J. of Personality and Social Psychlogy34: 282-294.
13.
Kessler, J. (1973) "An empirical study of six-and twelve-member jury decision making processes." University of Michigan J. of Law Reform6: 712-734.
14.
Larntz, K. (1973) "Small sample comparison of likelihood-ratio and Pearson chi-square statistics for the null distribution." Technical Report #218. University of Minnesota School of Statistics.
15.
Laughlin, P.R., N.L. Kerr, J.H. Davis, H. Halff, and K. Marciniak (1975) "Group size, member ability and social decision schemes on an intellective task." J. of Personality and Social Psychology31: 522-535.
16.
Miller, G.R. (1975) "Jurors' responses to videotaped trial materials ." Personality and Social Psychology Bull.1: 561-569.
17.
Mills, L.R. (1973) "Six- and twelve-member juries: an empirical study of trial results." University of Michigan J. of Law Reform6: 671-711.
18.
Simon, R. (1967) The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
Simon, R.J. and L. Mahan (1971) "Quantifying burdens of proof: a view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom." Law and Society Rev. (February): 319-330.
20.
Strodtbeck, F.L. (1962) "Social process, the law, and jury functioning ," in W. M. Evan (ed.) Law and Sociology: Exploratory Essays. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
21.
Wilson, D.W. and E. Donnerstein (1975) "Guilty or not guilty? a look at the simulated jury paradigm."Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association meetings, Chicago, May 1975 .
