SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.928
  • Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr Prejudice, Miss Sympathy and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734750.
  • Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 26, 625639. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441
  • Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 6367. doi:10.1177/0963721410397282
  • Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007). The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 25, 5768. doi:10.1002/bsl.734
  • Cohen, J. (1988). The analysis of variance. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 273406). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Systematic jury selection. In R. L. Weiner & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 1331). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_2
  • Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defence cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165182. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90052-6
  • Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141158. doi:10.1007/BF01067048
  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 622727. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622
  • Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Applied Experimental Psychology, 14, 353363. doi:10.1037/a0013344
  • Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224232.
  • Ellsworth, P. C. (1993). Some steps between attitudes and verdicts. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision-making (pp. 4264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 16.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Greene, E., Chopra, S. R., & Kovera, M. B. (2002). Jurors and juries: A review of the field. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 225284). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
  • Hastie, R. (Ed.). (1993). Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision-making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Heffer, C. (2006). Beyond ‘reasonable doubt’: The criminal standard of proof instruction as communicative act. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13, 159188. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v13i2.159
  • Helgeson, V. S., & Shaver, K. G. (1990). Presumption of innocence: Congruence bias induced and overcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 276302. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00412.x
  • Hemmens, C., Scarborough, K. E., & del Carmen, R. V. (1997). Grave doubts about reasonable doubt: Confusion in state and federal courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 231254. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00008-1
  • Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainly of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 655670. doi:10.1007/BF01499236
  • ICM Research (2007). State of the nation 2006. Summary results. London, UK: ICM Research. Retrieved from http://www.icmresearch.co.uk
  • Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194200. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x
    Direct Link:
  • Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
  • Kassin, S. L., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423442. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3
  • Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 282394. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.282
  • Koch, C. M., & Devine, D. J. (1999). Effects of reasonable doubt and inclusion of a lesser charge on jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409438. doi:10.1023/A:1022389305876
  • Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661677. doi:10.1007/BF01044688
  • Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2002). Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 455463. doi:10.1023/A:1016335422706
  • Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision-making: Development and validation of the pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 20102038. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
  • Lecci, L. B., & Myers, B. (2009). Predicting guilt judgments and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 157, 619934. doi:10.1080/10683160802477757
  • Levett, L., Danielsen, E., Kovera, M., & Cutler, B. (2005). The psychology of juror and jury decision-making. In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365406). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Lundrigan, S., Dhami, M. K., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (n.d.). The influence of charge seriousness and consequence of conviction on juror decisions. Manuscript in preparation.
  • MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 2133. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21
  • Mitchell, H. E., & Byrne, D. (1973). Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 123129. doi:10.1037/h0034263
  • Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621637. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9
  • Montgomery, J. W. (1998). The criminal standard of proof. New Law Journal, 148, 582584.
  • Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1982). Scientific juror selection: Sex as a moderator of demographic and personality predictors of impanelled felony juror behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 10521063. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.1052
  • Mueller-Johnson, K., Dhami, M. K., & Lundrigan, S. (2013). Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 239256. doi:10.1023/A:1025798204956
  • Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 3442. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.34
  • Newkirk, J. M. (1981). The effect of different reasonable doubt definitions and group versus individual deliberation on the behaviour of mock jurors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1673-B1674-B.
  • Newman, J. O. (1993). Beyond “reasonable doubt”. New York University Law Review, 68, 9791002.
  • Posey, A. J., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2005). Trial consulting (pp. 157172). American Psychology-Law Society Series. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Sandays, M., & Dillehay, C. (1995). First-ballot votes, pre-deliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 175195. doi:10.1007/BF01499324
  • United States v Fatico (1978). 458 F.Supp. 388. (E.D.N.Y. 1978).
  • Woody, W. D., & Greene, E. (2012). Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 856872. doi:10.1002/bsl.2027
  • Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a reasonable doubt instruction affects decisions of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 9198. doi:10.1080/01973530701331254
  • Wright, D. B., Strubler, K. A., & Vallano, J. P. (2010). Statistical techniques for juror and jury research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 90125. doi:10.1348/135532510X487655