Identifying Juror Bias: Moving from Assessment and Prediction to a New Generation of Jury Selection Research

Chapter

Abstract

One of the behavioral assumptions made by the legal system that has attracted attention is the notion that jurors can make decisions which are free from bias. In an attempt to ensure that seated juries are comprised of jurors who are free from bias, venirepersons (i.e., potential jurors) are interviewed in a pretrial procedure called voir dire. During this procedure, venirepersons respond to questions that are designed to elicit responses that will allow judges and attorneys to evaluate whether they may have knowledge or biases that would interfere with the duty to evaluate the evidence fairly and make decisions that comport with the law. In this chapter, the psychological assumptions of legal actors about the identification of venireperson bias during voir dire, and the extent to which the process results in the removal of problematic jurors from jury service, are reviewed. The empirical literature from the first generation of jury selection research was devoted to identifying traits or developing attitudinal measures that predict juror verdicts. The chapter contains a review of several studies that represent a new generation of jury selection research that moves beyond mere prediction of venirepersons’ verdict inclinations to an evaluation of the extent to which social cognitive and social influence processes interfere with judges’ and attorneys’ abilities to effectively exercise challenges to venirepersons’ potential jury service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers 0520617 and 0921408, awarded to the first author. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Batson v. Kentucky. (1986). 476 U.S. 79.Google Scholar
  2. Blue, L. A. (1991). Jury selection in a civil case. Trial Lawyers Quarterly, 21, 11–25.Google Scholar
  3. 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, 734–750.Google Scholar
  4. Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424–1430. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 175–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1014640025871.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229–266). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Cosper, C. A. (2003). Rehabilitation of the juror rehabilitation doctrine. Georgia Law Review, 37, 1471–1508.Google Scholar
  8. Crocker, C. B. (2011). An investigation of the psychological processes involved in juror rehabilitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.Google Scholar
  9. Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 212–226. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Crocker, C., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Systematic jury selection. In R. L. Wiener & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 13–31). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G. P., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165–182. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(92)90052-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819–832. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00926.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, S. S., Saks, M., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 300–325.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, S. S., & Zeisel, H. (1974). A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 276–277. doi: 10.1177/014616727400100193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382–394. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–109). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74. doi: 10.1037/h0035872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990a). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233–259.Google Scholar
  20. Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990b). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works? Ohio Northern University Law Review, 17, 229–253.Google Scholar
  21. Garcia, L., & Griffitt, W. (1978). Evaluation and recall of evidence: Authoritarianism and the Patty Hearst case. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 57–67. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(78)90083-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giewat, G. R. (2001). Juror honesty and candor during voir dire questioning: The influence of impression management. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62. Google Scholar
  24. Greathouse, S. M., Otis, C. C., Kennard, J. B., Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Attorney expectations influence the voir dire process. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  25. Greathouse, S. M., Sothmann, F. C., Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 427–439. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9247-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death-qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121–132. doi: 10.1007/BF01044355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodgins, H. S., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Beyond selecting information: Biases in spontaneous questions and resultant conclusions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 387–407. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1993.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. (1994). 114 S.Ct. 1419.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131–146. doi: 10.1007/BF01040446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennard, J. B., Otis, C. C., Austin, J. L., Zimmerman, D. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Behavioral confirmation in voir dire: Effects on jury selection and verdict choices. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  33. Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545–567. doi: 10.1007/BF01499374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (2013). Jury selection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58–75. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kravitz, D., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi: 10.1007/BF01044688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamberth, J., Krieger, E., & Shay, S. (1982). Juror decision making: A case of attitude change mediated by authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 419–434. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(82)90003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, 455–463. doi: 10.1023/A:1016335422706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 2010–2038. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lecci, L., & 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, 15, 619–634. doi: 10.1080/10683160802477757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Louden, J. E., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Constructing insanity: Jurors’ prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 449–470. doi: 10.1002/bsl.760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luginbuhl, J., & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors’ responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 263–281. doi: 10.1007/BF01044384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marques, J., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Middendorf, K., & Luginbuhl, J. (1995). The value of a nondirective voir dire style in jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 129–151. doi: 10.1177/0093854895022002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law & Psychology Review, 18, 309–328.Google Scholar
  47. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331–348.Google Scholar
  48. 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, 239–256. doi: 10.1023/A:1025798204956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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, 34–42. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neises, M. L., & Dillehay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proneness: Witt and Witherspoon compared. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 479–494. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370050411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nietzel, M. T., Dillehay, R. C., & Himelein, M. J. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 467–477. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370050410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., & Brauner, S. (2007). Bias in jury selection: Justifying prohibited peremptory challenges. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 467–479. doi: 10.1002/bdm.571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 443–470. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Olczak, P. V., Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys’ lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 431–452.Google Scholar
  56. Otis, C. C., Greathouse, S. M., Kennard, J. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Hypothesis-testing in attorney-conducted voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 392–404. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000092.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Peters, M., & Lecci, L. (2012). Predicting verdicts, adherence to judge’s instructions, and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 817–831. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.566872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Phares, E., & Wilson, K. G. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40, 392–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00069.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Rose, M. R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one country. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 695–702. doi: 10.1023/A:1022393506784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons’ attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623–648. doi: 10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Skov, R. B., & Sherman, S. J. (1986). Information-gathering processes: Diagnosticity, hypothesis-confirmatory strategies, and perceived hypothesis confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93–121. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90031-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snyder, M., & Haugen, J. A. (1994). Why does behavioral confirmation occur? A functional perspective on the role of the perceiver. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 218–246. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 261–273. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Stukas, A., & Snyder, M. (2002). Targets’ awareness of expectations and behavioral confirmation in ongoing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 31–40. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trope, Y., & Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis-testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weigel, R. H., & Newman, L. S. (1976). Increasing attitude-behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793–892. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.33.6.793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors’ verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01467.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Werner, C. M., Kagehiro, D. K., & Strube, M. J. (1982). Conviction proneness and the authoritarian juror: Inability to disregard information or attitudinal bias? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 629–636. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). The jury on trial: Comparing legal assumptions with psychological evidence. In N. E. Grunberg, R. E. Nisbett, J. Rodin, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), A distinctive approach to psychological research: The influence of Stanley Schachter (pp. 27–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, D. M., Otis, C. C., Kennard, J. B., Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Behavioral confirmation during voir dire: The effects of biased voir dire questions on juror decision-making. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.University of the PacificStocktonUSA

Personalised recommendations