The consensus among authors in the area of juridic decision making is that trial jurors often readily disregard judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence. Perhaps, however, the moderating influence of a key methodological variable-the presence or absence of group deliberations-has been overlooked by those making this assertion. It was hypothesized that mock juries (who participate in deliberations) would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible testimony than mock jurors (responding individually, without deliberations). Results supported this hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartol, C. R. (1983). Psychology and American law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
Bray, R. M. , & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
3.
Bray, R. M. , & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Brown, M. B. , & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust tests for equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 364-367.
5.
Bruning, J. L. , & Kintz, B. L. (1987). Computational handbook of statistics. Glenview, IL: HarperCollins.
6.
Carretta, T. R. , & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291-309.
7.
Davis, J. H. , Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. (1977). The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
8.
Dexter, H. R. , Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832.
9.
Helgeson, V. S. , & Shaver, K. G. (1990). Presumption of innocence: Congruence bias induced and overcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 276-302.
10.
Kalven, H., Jr. , & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
11.
Kaplan, M. F. , & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443-1455.
12.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Kline, F. G. , & Jess, P. H. (1966). Pretrial publicity: Its effect on law school mock juries. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 113.
14.
Lind, E. A. (1982). The psychology of courtroom procedure. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
15.
MacCoun, R. J. (1990). The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation. Criminal justice and Behavior, 17, 303-314.
16.
MacCoun, R. J. , & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personally and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
17.
Myers, D. , & Kaplan, M. (1976). Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 63-66.
18.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
19.
Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113, 1-68.
20.
Penrod, S. , & Borgida, E. (1983). Legal rules and lay inference. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 151-180.
21.
Sealy, A. P. , & Cornish, W. R. (1973, April). Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review, pp. 208-223.
22.
Sue, S. , Smith, R., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3-4, 345-353.
23.
Sue, S. , Smith, R., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163-171.
24.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983).Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
25.
Thompson, W. C. , Fong, G. T., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453-463.
26.
Weiten, W. , & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
27.
Wolf, S. , & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgements of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.
28.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
