Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Story Model of Juror Decision Making proposes that jurors develop a story of the case, match the story to verdict templates, and then select the best match between the story and the verdict. The present research investigated the effect different text structures in opening statements and closing arguments had on jurors' recognition for trial information and decision-making, It was hypothesized: (1) narrative opening statements would enhance story construction and (2) comparison-expository closing arguments would enhance story classification. 80 introductory psychology students read a medical malpractice mock lawsuit, rendered a verdict, were tested for recognition of trial facts, and gave an estimate of the surgeon's negligence. The defense's opening statements and closing arguments were written either in narrative or comparison-expository text format. Although weak support for the first hypothesis was found, evidence supporting the effect of comparison-expository text in closing arguments on juror decisions was stronger.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cutler

B. L.

Penrod

S. D.

Dexter

H. R.

(1990) Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Mauro

(1998) Psychology and law. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

, & Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 2. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 684–732.

Geraghty

T. F.

(1987) Farrell, et al. v. Strong Line, Inc., Hita Memorial Hospital, and Dr. Madden Case File. (2nd ed.) St. Paul, MN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Hastie

(1993) Algebraic models of juror decision making. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 84–115.

Hastie

Pennington

(2000) Explanation-based decision making. In Commolly

Arkes

H. R.

, & Hammond

K. R.

(Eds.), Judgment and decision making: an interdisciplinary reader. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 212–228.

Horowitz

I. A.

Forsterlee

Brolly

(1996) Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 757–768.

Huntley

J. E.

Costanzo

(2003) Sexual harassment stories: testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 29–51.

Kassin

S. M.

(2005) On the psychology of confessions: does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.

Kerr

(1993) Stochastic models of juror decision making. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 116435.

10.

Lempert

R. O.

(1993) Why do jury research? In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 242–254.

11.

Levett

L. M.

Danielsen

E. M.

Kovera

M. B.

Cutler

B. L.

(2005) The psychology of jury and juror decision-making. In Brewer

Williams

K. D.

(Eds.), Psychology and law: an empirical perspective: New York: P. Pp. 365–406.

12.

Lopes

(1993) Two conceptions of the juror. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 255–262.

13.

Mandler

J. M.

(1984) Stories, scripts, and scenes: aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Meyer

B. J. F.

(1985) Prose analysis: purposes, procedures, and problems. In Britton

B. K.

Black

(Eds.), Analyzing and understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 269–304.

15.

Miene

Park

Borgida

(1992) Juror decision making and the evaluation of hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 51–94.

16.

Moore

P. J.

Gump

B. B.

(1995) Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2158–2179.

17.

Pennington

Hastie

(1988) Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533.

18.

Pennington

Hastie

(1993) The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 192–221.

19.

Smith

B. C.

Penrod

S. D.

Otto

A. L.

Park

R. C.

(1996) Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49–82.

20.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

Function of Text Structure in Jurors' Comprehension and Decision Making

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References