Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm

The case of defendant characteristics

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Reference Notes

  • Bray, R.M. The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September, 1976.

  • Rumsey, M.G., & Castore, C. H. The effects of defendant description and group discussion on individual sentencing judgments. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1974.

  • Kulka, R.A., & Kessler, J.B. Is justice really blind? — The influence of physical attractiveness on decisions of simulated jurors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New York, 1973.

  • Bray, R.M. Decision rules, attitude similarity, and jury decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois 1974.

  • Laughlin, E.R., & Izzett, R.R. Deliberation and sentencing by attitudinally homogenous juries. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, May 1973.

  • Lineberry, M.D., Becker, L.A., & Lammers, H.B. The influence of defendant-juror attitude similatiry, authoritarianism, and strength of evidence on punitiveness and attraction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1977.

  • Crosson, R.F. An investigation into certain personality variables among capital trial jurors.Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, APA, 1970, 445–446.

  • Zeisel, H. Some data on juror attitudes towards capital punishment. Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School (Monograph), 1968.

  • Miller, F.D., & Hamilton, V.L. Decision making processes in simulated juries. Paper presented at Public choice Meeting, Chicago, April, 1975.

  • Miller, G.R., Fontes, N.E., Boster, F.J., & Sunnafrank, M. Methodological issues in jury research: What can simulations tell us? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August, 1977.

  • Weiten, W. Methodological problems in jury simulation research on attraction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1979.

References

  • Abelson, R. P. Simulation of social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. Reading Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, F. Socioeconomic factors influencing jury verdicts.New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 1973,3, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, P.O.D. 1962.

  • Anderson, N.H. A simple model for information integration. In R.P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.),Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E.A., & Carlsmith, J.M. Experimentation, in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.)Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, K.S., & Vidmar, N. Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior.Journal of Research in Personality, 1975,9, 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermant, G., McGuire, M., McKinley, W., & Salo, C. The logic of simulation in jury research.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1974,1, 224–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, V. Mr. prejudice, Miss sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of

  • Boor, M. Effects of victim competence and defendant opportunism on the decisions of simulated jurors.Journal of Social Psychology, 1975,96, 301–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broeder, D.W. The negro in court.Duke Law Review, 1965, 19–31.

  • Browning, R.P. Simulation: Attempts and possibilites. In J.N. Knutson (Ed.)Handbook of Political Psychology San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, H.A. Significance of the racial factor in the length of prison sentences.The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Political Science 1961,52, 411–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchard, W.W. Lawyers, political scientists, sociologists and concealed microphones.American Sociological Review, 1958,23, 686–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D.The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, W.R., & Sealy, A.P. Juries and the rules of evidence.Criminal Law Review, 1973, 208–223.

  • Cronbach, L.J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist., 1957,12, 671–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 1975,30, 116–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.H., Bray, R.M., & Holt, R. The emprirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J.L. Tapp and F.J. Levine (Eds.).Law. Justice, and the Individual in Society: Psychological and Legal Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.H., Kerr, N.L., Atkin, R.S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6-and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJong, W., Morris, W.N., & Hastorf, A.H.. Effect of an escaped accomplice on the punishment assigned to a criminal defendant.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,33, 192–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S.S., & Zeisel, H. A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision-making.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1974,1, 276–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, W.M.. Some empirical evidence on the effect of Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon an accused.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1972,15, 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, E.B., & Konečni, V.J. Decision making and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 805–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efran, M.G. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task.Journal of Research in Personality, 1974,8, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlanger, J. Jury research in America: Its past and future.Law and Society Review, 1970,4, 345–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. Informal social communication.Psychological Review., 1950,57, 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishebein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J.L. Role-playing: Psychology by consensus.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969,13, 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, R.M., & Vinson, M. Leaning over backwars: Juror's responses to defendants' attractiveness.Journal of Communication, 1974,24, 124–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbasi, K.C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H.T. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research.Psychological Bulletin, 1977,84, 323–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, J.M., & Harris, V.A. Race, socioecomic status, and perceived similarity as determinants of judgments by simulated jurors.Social Behavior and Personality, 1975,3, 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, J.M., & Harris, V.A. Group disecussion and defendant's socioeconomic status as determinants of judgments by simulated jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976,6, 186–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R.I., & Jacobs, P.D. Forensic psychology: Perception of guilt and income.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969,28, 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury-defendant attitude similaritydissimilarity.Social Behavior and Personality, 1973,1, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V.L. Obedience and responsibility: A jury simulation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 126–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V.P., & Doob, A.N. Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries.Criminal Law Quarterly, 1976,18, 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izzett, R., & Fishman, L. Defendant sentences as a function of attractiveness and justification for actions.Journal of Social Psychology, 1976,100, 285–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izzett, R.R., & Leginski, W.. Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting.Journal of Social Psychology, 1974,93, 271–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, S.K., & Berger, C.R. Communication and justice: defendant attributes and their effects on the severity of his sentence.Speech Monographs, 1974,41, 282–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Aronson, E. Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,26, 415–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurow, G.L. New data on the effect of a “death-qualified” jury on the guilt determination process.Harvard Law Review, 1971,84, 567–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H.The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M.F., & Kemmerick, C.D. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information.Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 1974,30, 493–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L., Atkin, R.S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R.W., & Davis, J.H. 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, 1976,34, 282–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.L., Nerenz, D., & Herrick, D. Role-playing and the study of jury behavior.Sociological Methods and Research, 1979,7, 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969,5, 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. O. Uncovering “non-discernible” differences: Empirical research and the jury-size cases.Michgigan Law Review, 1975,73, 643–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, D., & Gergen, K. Personality and social interaction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.)The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 3. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, W.M. Studies in testimony.Journal of American Institution of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1924,15, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, H.E., & Byrne, D. The defendant's dilemma: Effects of juror attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,25, 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D.G., & Bishop, C.D. Discussion effects on racial attitudes.Science, 1970,169, 778–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D.G., & Kaplan, M.F. Group-induced polarization in simulated Juries.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1976,2, 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R.H. A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors.Journal of Social Psychology, 1973,90, 221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.American Psychologist, 1962,17, 776–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J.P. Jury deliberations, voting, and verdict trends.The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 1965,45, 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D.E., & Sanders, M.S. Effect of defendant autractiveness, age and injury on severity of sentence given by simulated jurors.Journal of Social Psychology, 1975,96, 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, M.H., & Fichter, J.J. Sex differences in moralism and punitiveness.Psychonomic Science, 1969,16, 185–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, A.M., & Prell, A.E. Does the punishment fit the crime? A study in social evaluation.American Journal of Sociology, 1955,61, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumsey, M. G. Effect of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976,6, 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sealy, A.P., & Cornish, W.R. Jurors and theirverdiets.Modern Law Review, 1973,36, 496–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigall, H., & Landy, D. Effects of the defendant's character and suffering on juridic judgment: A replication and clarifucation.Journal of Social Psychology. 1972,88, 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of crime on juridic judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,31, 410–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R.J., & Mahan, L. Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury and the classroom.Law and Society Review, 1971,5, 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snortum, J.R., & Ashear, V.H. Prejudice, punitiveness and personality.Journal of Personality Assessment, 1972,36, 291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Law Review (Note). A study of the California penalty jury in first-degree murder cases.Stanford Law Review, 1969,21, 1296–1497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, C. Sex prejudice in jury simulation.Journal of Psychology, 1974,88, 305–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, C., & Tully, J.C. The influence of physical attractiveness of a plaintiff on the decisions of simulated jurors.Journal of Social Psychology, 1977,101, 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry, T.P. Race, socioeconomic status and sentencing in the juvenile system.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1973,64, 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors.Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 1972,22, 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972,22, 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, M.A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D.J. Group influence on individula risk-taking.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,65, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D.W., & Donnerstein, E. Guilty or not guilty? A look at the “simulated” jury paradigm.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977,7, 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S.S. “Convincing empirical evidence” on the six member jury.University of Chicago Law Review, 1974,41, 281–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeisel, H., & Diamond, S.S. The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict.Stanford Law Review, 1978,30, 491–531.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, USA

    Wayne Weiten

  2. Department of Psychology and Criminal Justice, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle

    Shari Seidman Diamond

Authors
  1. Wayne Weiten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shari Seidman Diamond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Before the special issue articles were submitted, this manuscript was presented for publication to the journal. The manuscript underwent external review, revision, and acceptance. It is included in this issue because of its clear topic relevance—Bruce Sales, Editor

About this article

Cite this article

Weiten, W., Diamond, S.S. A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm. Law Hum Behav 3, 71–93 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039149

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01039149

Keywords

Search

Navigation