My thanks to Phil Sealy for making the tapes used in the LSE Jury Project available. The author is also indebted to Ian Morley for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper, and to two reviewers for commenting on an early version of this paper.
Witnesses and Their Testimony: Effects of Ordering on Juror Verdicts1
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 12, Issue 4, pages 318–333, August 1982
How to Cite
Pennington, D. C. (1982), Witnesses and Their Testimony: Effects of Ordering on Juror Verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12: 318–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00868.x
This research was conducted under a postgraduate research grant from the Social Sciences Research Council.
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Thibaut and Walker's claim that criminal courtroom proceedings are subject to pervasive recency effects was experimentally investigated. Previous research on order effects in a legal setting is critically reviewed; it is argued that this research fails to provide adequate simulation of courtroom protocol. An experiment was designed to retain the structure of a criminal trial while manipulating witness and testimony order. In contrast to earlier research, primacy effects were found. The greatest number of guilty verdicts by simulated jurors occurred when the strongest “guilty” witnesses and “guilty” testimony by these witnesses came first. These results are discussed with respect to (a) witness and testimony order, (b) length of case, and (c) type of case used.