Revising the Factor Structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A Method for the Empirical Validation of Theoretical Constructs

The application of factor analytic techniques to explore the construct and predictive validity of a popular scale used for the identification of pretrial juror bias is herein reported. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed on the Juror Bias Scale (JBS) scores of 301 participants, but empirical findings did not support the theoretically derived single-factor scales of Probability of Commission and Reasonable Doubt. Empirically driven alternative models were generated using exploratory factor analysis. The JBS scores of an additional 301 participants were then employed to cross-validate the initial findings using nested modeling CFA. The empirical model achieved a significantly improved fit over the theoretical model and resulted in the elimination of approximately 30% of the original items with no attenuation in the scale's ability to predict juror verdicts. Moreover, a theoretical reorganization of the items was consistent with the empirically derived model and provided a rationale for altering the scoring of the JBS which, in turn, maximized its predictive validity. The use of CFA techniques to aid in the development of scales assessing jury attitudes and biases is discussed.     

Effects of pretrial juror bias,strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: new validity evidence of the Juror Bias Scale scores

This study examines the validity of the Juror Bias Scale scores in relation to the mock juror decisions reached in two real life homicide cases before and after the deliberation process. The judicial cases used varied in terms of the ambiguity of the evidence presented at both trials. The WLS methodology for statistical modelling of categorical data was used to analyse data. The findings indicated that the Juror Bias Scale scores successfully predict the verdicts and other related questions before and after deliberations in the case with ambiguous evidence. Furthermore, deliberations caused a generalisation effect on the pretrial juror bias in such a case, and enhanced the differences between defense-biased and prosecution-biased jurors in the verdicts delivered after deliberations. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the use of pretrial juror bias questionnaires in jury selection.     

The Effects of General Pretrial Publicity on Juror Decisions: An Examination of Moderators and Mediating Mechanisms

Two studies examined three moderators (gender, attitudes, and media slant) and four mediators (accessibility, evidence importance, evidence plausibility, and standards of guilt) of general pretrial publicity's influence on juror decisions. In Study 1, participants who watched a prodefense rape story were more likely to report that they would need more inculpatory evidence to convict a defendant of rape than were participants who watched a proprosecution rape story. In Study 2, participants watched news stories, one of which was a proprosecution rape story, a prodefense rape story, or a nonrape story. In an ostensibly unrelated study, participants indicated their attitudes toward rape, watched a rape trial, and provided trial and witness ratings. Accessibility did not mediate the media effects on participants' judgments of rape importance; however, attitudes moderated media effects. Rape news influenced juror ratings of the importance of evidence about the complainant's behavior. Finally, media altered the standards participants used to determine defendant guilt. Implications for understanding the mechanisms responsible for pretrial publicity effects are discussed.     

Pretrial publicity,judicial remedies,and jury bias

Although past research has established pretrial publicity's potential to bias juror judgment, there has been less attention given to the effectiveness of judicial remedies for combatting such biases. The present study examined the effectiveness of three remedies (judicial instructions, deliberation, and continuance) in combatting the negative impact of different types of pretrial publicity. Two different types of pretrial publicity were examined: (a) factual publicity (which contained incriminating information about the defendant) and (b) emotional publicity (which contained no explicitly incriminating information, but did contain information likely to arouse negative emotions). Neither instructions nor deliberation reduced the impact of either form of publicity; in fact, deliberation strengthened publicity biases. Both social decision scheme analysis and a content analysis of deliberation suggested that prejudicial publicity increases the persuasiveness and/or lessens the persuasibility of advocates of conviction relative to advocates of acquittal. Acontinuance of several days between exposure to the publicity and viewing the trial served as an effective remedy for the factual publicity, but not for the emotional publicity. The article concludes by discussing the potential roles of affect and memory in juror judgment and evaluating the available remedies for pretrial publicity.     

The biasing impact of pretrial publicity on juror judgments

This study examines three previously unexplored aspects of the biasing impact of pretrial publicity. First, this study tests the differential effects of several different types of pretrial publicity on juror decision making. Second, this study explores the impact the presentation of trial evidence has on biases created by pretrial publicity. Finally, the study explores the psychological processes by which pretrial publicity effects may operate. Results indicate that pretrial publicity, particularly negative information about the defendant's character, can influence subjects' initial judgments about a defendant's guilt. This bias is weakened, but not eliminated by the presentation of trial evidence. Character pretrial publicity, and both weak and strong inadmissible statements appear to operate by changing subjects' initial judgments of the defendant's guilt. This initial judgment then affects the way subjects assess the evidence presented in the trial and the attributions they make about the defendant. Prior record pretrial publicity appears to have its effects by influencing subjects' inferences about the criminality of the defendant and this is related to posttrial judgments.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale

Abstract

Previous research has provided support for the impact of juror pre-trial bias on judicial decision making, particularly in cases where the evidence presented at trial is of weak or ambiguous probative value. In an effort to identify whether a pre-trial bias for forensic evidence exists, the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed and tested. The results of a principal components analysis suggested that two distinct constructs were being measured, corresponding to a pro-prosecution and pro-defence bias toward forensic evidence. In a second validation study, scores on these two subscales were compared with other existing juror bias measures (Juror Bias Scale and Belief in a Just World) and in a mock juror decision making task only the pro-prosecution subscale of the FEEBS predicted the perceived strength of forensic evidence. A partial mediation model is presented which explains the relationship between this bias and verdict preferences. The implications of this potential juror bias are discussed in the context of real juries, the CSI Effect (which refers to anecdotal claims that jurors are biased by the popularity of fictional representations of forensic science on television) and peremptory challenges, as well as future research directions.     

Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire

The Legal Attitudes Questionnaire (LAQ) predicts juror bias, but there is little evidence concerning its reliability and construct validity. Two studies provide such evidence for two versions of the LAQ. In Study 1 a questionnaire containing both versions of the LAQ, measures of related and unrelated constructs, and demographic questions was completed by 294 undergraduates. In Study 2 a shortened questionnaire was completed by 102 jury-eligible adults. In both studies, the revised version of the LAQ was superior to the original LAQ in terms of missing data, internal reliability, and construct validity. A refined version of the revised scale is presented, evaluated, and recommended for future use.This article is an expanded version of a poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society in March, 1992. We are grateful to Barbara Martin and Ray Wolfe for their comments on a previous version of this article. We would like to thank Sean Henriques, Tracy Chavez, Jennifer Devenport, Alex Milov, and Cathy Mucha for their assistance in data acquisition, entry, and verification. Finally, we thank the Miami Beach Kiwanis for participating in this study.     

Chaos in The Courtroom Reconsidered: Emotional Bias and Juror Nullification

A widespread presumption in the law is that giving jurors nullification instructions would result in "chaos"-jurors guided not by law but by their emotions and personal biases. We propose a model of juror nullification that posits an interaction between the nature of the trial (viz. whether the fairness of the law is at issue), nullification instructions, and emotional biases on juror decision-making. Mock jurors considered a trial online which varied the presence a nullification instructions, whether the trial raised issues of the law's fairness (murder for profit vs. euthanasia), and emotionally biasing information (that affected jurors' liking for the victim). Only when jurors were in receipt of nullification instructions in a nullification-relevant trial were they sensitive to emotionally biasing information. Emotional biases did not affect evidence processing but did affect emotional reactions and verdicts, providing the strongest support to date for the chaos theory.     

Sexual harassment stories: testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation

The story model of juror decision-making proposes that jurors use personal experience and information presented at trial to create stories that guide their verdicts. This model has received strong empirical support in studies using criminal cases. The research presented here extends the story model to civil litigation and tests a story-mediated model against an unmediated model of jury decision-making. In Phase 1, content analysis of mock juror responses to 4 realistic sexual harassment cases revealed prototypic plaintiff and defense stories. In Phase 2, these prototypic stories were included as mediators in a model predicting verdicts in 4 additional sexual harassment cases. Mock juror attitudes, experiences, and demographics were assessed, then attorneys presented abbreviated versions of 4 actual sexual harassment cases. Path analyses provided support for the story-mediated model, which added significantly to the amount of variance accounted for in the outcome measures of verdict, commitment to verdict, and confidence times verdict. Implications for sexual harassment and other types of civil cases are discussed.     

Studying Pretrial Publicity Effects: New Methods for Improving Ecological Validity and Testing External Validity

Although research examining the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) on individuals' appraisals of a defendant and verdict decision making generally has been found to be internally valid, the external validity has been questioned by some social scientists as well as lawyers and judges. It is often proposed that the verisimilitude (or ecological validity) of the research should be increased in the service of increasing external validity; however, increasing verisimilitude can be costly in terms of both time and money. It is proposed that the Internet is a viable means of conducting PTP research that allows high verisimilitude without high costs. This is demonstrated with a study in which we used the Internet to examine PTP effects in an actual trial as it was taking place. Successful use of the Internet to conduct experimental research in other areas of psychology and law is discussed, as well as the importance of future research examining whether independent variables interact with methods in ways that undermine the generalizability of research findings.     

Mock jurors’ perceptions of a child witness: the impact of the presence and/or intervention of a registered intermediary during cross-examination

ABSTRACT

In recent years Registered Intermediaries (RIs) have been involved in facilitating communication in children's investigative interviews and trial proceedings. Their presence and interventions are generally deemed to have a positive impact on child engagement, but their impact on jury appraisal of evidence, during cross-examination is unclear. This study addressed this issue in a more ecologically valid context than that previously used. Adult mock juror participants (N?=?217) watched a video-recording of a mock cross-examination of a child witness in which a RI was present or absent, and in which RI type interventions were either included or omitted. The participants rated the quality of the cross-examination and the child's responses in relation to child credibility, child understanding, legal professional's behaviour, and trial progression. Findings indicated that RI presence or absence, and inclusion or omission of interventions had no effect on mock juror ratings. However, an interaction between these variables demonstrated that mock jurors rated trial progression towards a guilty verdict according to which court professional did, or did, not intervene. The findings also demonstrated that mock jurors based their assessment of trial progression towards a guilty verdict on the evidence presented, and that child understanding per se was irrelevant.     

A simulation model of pretrial felony case processing: A queuing system analysis

Case processing tends to be examined with data analysis or evaluation designs. Both limit our understanding of how case processing as a whole operates and how its parts relate to each other. This article suggests queue simulation modeling as a method for dealing with these issues. We report here the initial development and analysis of a queuing model of arraignment to trial assignment. Conceptualizing on the basis of court functions and empirical findings, rather than institutional structures, we conceive a five-stage pretrial process. Using case-level, rather than system-level data, we construct a single-server, multiphase queuing model and use the model to simulate the behavior of a pretrial case processing system. Simulations show the strong impact of the final phase (trial assignment) on the entire system and that most of this impact is delay rather than service. The system is then analyzed using a factorial design that systematically alters model parameters thought to be important determinants of performance. Simulations are run for each possibility in the design, and analysis of variance is used to examine results. Analysis confirms prior results concerning final phase impact and points specifically to the import of phase capacity and exit rate. The utility of modeling is considered by suggesting some policy implications of the results for judicial staffing and behavior.     

“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Growing research has analyzed quantitative patterns of bail decisions and outcomes, but we know far less about how court officials justify their bail decisions. To enhance understanding of how bail decisions—and their resulting pretrial outcomes—are generated, we interviewed 104 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in a northeastern state. Court officials in our study reported three primary justifications at bail: ensuring defendants return to court, preventing crime, and lessening harm. The first two justifications have been suggested in the literature, but the latter is novel and encompasses two secondary justifications: lessening criminal legal system harm and lessening societal harm. We show how these justifications and the decisions they enable blend risk management with rehabilitation and emerge from court officials’ shared assumption of defendants’ social marginality but varied beliefs about what to do about such marginality pretrial. Each justification allows for distinct, but at times overlapping, bail decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of court official decision-making, research on racial and socioeconomic inequality, and bail reform policy.     

Validation of the factor structure and predictive validity of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale for robbery and sexual assault trial scenarios

In order to investigate the role of pre-trial attitudes about forensic science in juror decision-making, a previous study demonstrated the predictive validity of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS), using a murder trial scenario, which featured ambiguous prosecution DNA evidence. The current study validates the FEEBS using two new crime types and the conditions include a manipulation of the presence of DNA evidence in the trial scenario. The FEEBS successfully predicted mock jurors' perceptions of the probative value of DNA evidence for both robbery and sexual assault trials. The two subscales of the FEEBS were demonstrated to have different predictive ability depending on the presence or absence of DNA evidence. A confirmatory factor analytic technique was used to validate the underlying two-factor structure of the FEEBS, as previously proposed. These results are discussed with reference to the CSI Effect literature, and the potential for improvement to less empirically supported voir dire questioning techniques.     

JUST: a measure of jury system trustworthiness

ABSTRACT

Three studies developed and tested a new measure of the perceived trustworthiness of the jury system, the 23-item Jury System Trustworthiness (JUST) scale, and assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 assessed the scale’s factor structure and relation to other relevant constructs. In Studies 2 and 3, the JUST scale was administered to participants in two separate mock juror studies. The results of all three studies supported the hypothesized factor structure of the measure but showed that a simplified, 7-item measure was also effective. Overall, participants’ perceptions of juries were moderately positive, and the JUST scale was related to attitudes toward the police, authoritarianism, belief in a just world, juror bias, preference for a jury (vs. a bench) trial, and intention to respond to a jury summons. It also explained a unique portion of the variance in jury-specific beliefs and behavioral intentions, such as preference for a jury trial and response to a summons, beyond that accounted for by other legal attitudes. The JUST scale was not related to verdict decisions in either mock trial after controlling for authoritarianism. Several individual differences (e.g. age, race/ethnicity) were also related to attitudes toward the jury system.     

The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?

Despite the need to assess the ecological validity of jury simulation research before generalizing from simulations to the behavior of real jurors, surprisingly little jury research has directly addressed issues of validity. The present paper reviews the extant research on two aspects of the validity question—specifically, research that has compared different samples of mock jurors, and research that has manipulated the medium of trial presentation. In addition, jury simulation research published in the first 20 years of Law and Human Behavior is analyzed with respect to these variables. The majority of simulations used student-jurors and presented the trial in written form. Additionally, the methodology of simulation research has actually become less realistic over time. However, this trend is not necessarily cause for concern, as a review of the literature reveals little research that has obtained differences between different mock juror samples or different trial media.     

Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment

Common wisdom seems to suggest that racial bias, defined as disparate treatment of minority defendants, exists in jury decision-making, with Black defendants being treated more harshly by jurors than White defendants. The empirical research, however, is inconsistent—some studies show racial bias while others do not. Two previous meta-analyses have found conflicting results regarding the existence of racial bias in juror decision-making (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315–1344; Sweeney & Haney, 1992, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 179–195). This research takes a meta-analytic approach to further investigate the inconsistencies within the empirical literature on racial bias in juror decision-making by defining racial bias as disparate treatment of racial out-groups (rather than focusing upon the minority group alone). Our results suggest that a small, yet significant, effect of racial bias in decision-making is present across studies, but that the effect becomes more pronounced when certain moderators are considered. The state of the research will be discussed in light of these findings.