Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 507–525 | Cite as

The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors

A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case
  • James R. P. Ogloff
  • Neil Vidmar


Previous research on how jurors are prejudiced by pretrial publicity (PTP) has focused on the impact of print media (i.e., newspapers). However, in this “television age”, we are exposed to compelling and vivid images of crimes and cases. This raises the question of whether potential jurors may be more influenced by television media (e.g., news programs or televised hearings) then print media (e.g., newspaper and magazine articles). Using an actual case involving extensive PTP, the present study varied the type of medium (print articles, video, articles+video) presented to potential jurors. The results indicated that exposure to the various media had a prejudicial impact on people, and that they were unaware of their biases. As hypothesized, television exposure and television plus print articles biased potential jurors significantly more than exposure to print media alone.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Bar Association. (1968).Project on standards for criminal justice, standards relating to fair trial and free press. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Antunes, G. E., & Hurley, P. A. (1978). The representation of criminal events in Houston's two daily papers.Journalism Quarterly, 55, 756–760.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, C. (1992, November 30). Little Rascals: State's longest, most expensive trial finally ends.North Carolina Lawyer, May/June, 8–10.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories.Cognition, 5, 73–99.Google Scholar
  5. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of theConstitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of theCanada Act of 1982 (U.K.), 1982.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. S., Kerr, N. L., Alfini, J., Weaver, F. M., MacCoun, R. J., & Feldman, V. (1986). Free pressaand fair trial: The role of behavioral research.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 187–201.Google Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605–614.Google Scholar
  8. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256.Google Scholar
  9. Constantini, E., & King, J. (1980). The partial juror: Correlates and causes of prejudgment.Law & Society Review, 15, 9–40.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, E., & Wade, R. (1987). Of private talk and public print: General pretrial publicity and juror decision making.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123–135.Google Scholar
  11. Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. (1973). The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated juries.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 267–271.Google Scholar
  12. Humphries, D. (1981). Serious crime news coverage and ideology: A content analysis of crime coverage in a metropolitan newspaper.Crime & Delinquency, 27, 191–205.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982).Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction.Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 163–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., Carroll, J. S., & Alfini, J. J. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study.American University Law Review, 40, 665–701.Google Scholar
  17. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias.Law & Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.Google Scholar
  18. McConahay, J., Mullin, C., & Frederick, J. (1977). The uses of social science in trials with political and racial overtones.Law and Contemporary Problems, 23, 205–229.Google Scholar
  19. McLuhan, M. (1964).Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. McLuhan, M. (1988).Laws of media: The new science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.Google Scholar
  23. North Carolina abuse trial hears ex-day care worker. (1992, July).Los Angeles Times, Part A, p. 18.Google Scholar
  24. North Carolina day-care operator convicted. (1992, July).American Bar Association Journal, July, p. 36.Google Scholar
  25. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Otto, R. K. (1991). Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research.Ethics and Behavior, 1, 239–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Padawer-Singer, A., & Barton, A. H. (1975). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors' verdicts. In R. Simon (Ed.),The jury system: A critical analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Padawer-Singer, A., Singer, A., & Singer, R. (1977). Legal and social-psychological research in the effects of pretrial publicity on juries, numerical makeup of juries, non-unanimous verdict requirements.Law and Psychology Review, 3, 71–79.Google Scholar
  28. Rollings, H. E., & Blascovich, J. (1977). The case of Patricia Hearst: Pretrial publicity and opinion.Journal of Communication, 27, 58–65.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, R. J. (1966). Murder, juries and the press.Trans-Action, 64–65.Google Scholar
  30. Simon, R. J., & Eimermann, T. (1971). The jury finds not guilty: Another look at media influence on the jury.Journalism Quarterly, 48 343–344.Google Scholar
  31. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effect of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions.Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.Google Scholar
  32. The Martensville scandal. (1992, June 22).Macleans, 26–30.Google Scholar
  33. Timnick, L., & McGraw, C. (January 19, 1990). McMartin verdict: Not guilty.Los Angeles Times, A1, A19.Google Scholar
  34. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 163–178). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Vidmar, N., & Judson, J. (1981). The use of social science in a change of venue application.Canadian Bar Review, 59, 76–102.Google Scholar
  36. Vidmar, N., & Melnitzer, J. (1984). Juror prejudice: An empirical study of a challenge for cause.Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 487–501.Google Scholar
  37. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the decisions of mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. P. Ogloff
    • 1
  • Neil Vidmar
    • 2
  1. 1.the Department of PsychologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Duke Law SchoolDurham

Personalised recommendations