Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 565–572 | Cite as

Evidential and extralegal factors in juror decisions: Presentation mode, retention, and level of emotionality

  • Vicki L. Fishfader
  • Gary N. Howells
  • Roger C. Katz
  • Pamela S. Teresi
Research Note


Examined whether video scene re-creations affect juror decisions by assessing factual retention, emotional state, liability assessments, and damage awards. 102 mock jurors reviewed case materials from a wrongful death suit in 1 of 3 formats: print (transcripts), videotaped testimony, or videotaped testimony plus video re-creation. Pre- to posttest differences in emotionality were assessed with the Profile of Mood States questionnaire. Retention levels were measured by multiple choice questionnaire. Jurors in the videotaped testimony conditions experienced greater emotional reactions than those who read transcripts. Mood changes were inversely related to liability assessments on the plaintiff but no differences in damage awards were noted. This suggests that perceptions of levels of defendant liability are influenced by emotions, but damage awards appear to be based more on factual evidence. Video scene re-creations may thus be more effective in inducing out-of-court settlements than in actually swaying jurors' decisions.


Emotional Reaction Factual Retention Mood Change Presentation Mode Case Material 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Branson, F. (Speaker). (1991).I-Witness Video (Video cassette recording). Burbank, CA: NBC News.Google Scholar
  2. Bridgeman, D., & Marlowe, D. (1979). Jury decision making: An empirical study based on actual felony trials.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 91–98.Google Scholar
  3. Browne, K. (1978). Comparison of factual recall from film and print stimuli.Journalism Quarterly, 55, 350–353.Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605–614.Google Scholar
  5. Christianson, S., & Loftus, E. (1987). Memory for traumatic events.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–239.Google Scholar
  6. Christianson, S., & Loftus, E. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information.Cognition and Emotion, 5, 81–108.Google Scholar
  7. Christianson, S., Loftus, E., Hoffman, H., & Loftus, G. (1991). Eye fixations and memory for emotional events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 17, 693–701.Google Scholar
  8. Constantini, E., Mallery, M., & Yapundich, D. (1983). Gender and juror partiality: Are women more likely to prejudge guilt?Judicature, 67, 121–133.Google Scholar
  9. Ford, M. (1986). The role of extralegel factors in jury verdicts.Justice System Journal, 11, 16–37.Google Scholar
  10. Furnham, A., Benson, I., & Gunter, B. (1987). Memory for television commercials as a function of the channel of communication.Social Behaviour, 2, 105–112.Google Scholar
  11. Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1985). Sex, presentation mode and memory for violent and non-violent news.Journal of Educational Television, 11, 99–105.Google Scholar
  12. Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1989). The primacy of print: Immediate cued recall of news as a function of the channel of communication.The Journal of General Psychology, 116, 305–310.Google Scholar
  13. Furnham, A., Gunter, B., & Green, A. (1990). Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 203–212.Google Scholar
  14. Furnham, A., Proctor, E., & Gunter, B. (1988). Memory for material presented in the media: The superiority of written communication.Psychological Reports, 63, 935–938.Google Scholar
  15. Gunter, B., & Furnham, A. (1986). Sex and personality differences in recall of violent and nonviolent news from three presentation modalities.Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 829–837.Google Scholar
  16. Gunter, B., Furnham, A., & Leese, J. (1986). Memory for information from a party political broadcast as a function of the channel of communication.Social Behavior, 1, 135–142.Google Scholar
  17. Juhnke, R., Vought, C., Pyszczynski, T., Dane, F., Losure, B., & Wrightsman, L. (1979). Effects of presentation mode upon mock juror's reactions to a trial.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 36–39.Google Scholar
  18. Kassin, S., & Garfield, D. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459–1472.Google Scholar
  19. McNair, D., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. (1992).EDITS manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  20. Mills, C., & Bohannon, W. (1980). Juror characteristics: To what extent are they related to jury verdicts?Judicature, 64, 22–27.Google Scholar
  21. Wasserman, D., & Robinson, J. (1980). Extralegal influences, group processes, and jury decision-making: A psychological perspective.North Carolina Law Journal, 12, 96–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicki L. Fishfader
    • 1
  • Gary N. Howells
    • 1
  • Roger C. Katz
    • 1
  • Pamela S. Teresi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of the PacificStockton

Personalised recommendations