Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis

Brian H Bornstein, Jonathan M. Golding, Jeffrey Neuschatz, Christopher Kimbrough, Krystia Reed, Casey Magyarics, Katherine Luecht

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)13-28
Number of pages16
JournalLaw and human behavior
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

liability
Meta-Analysis
Students
simulation
Research
damages
student
moderator
critic
rating
Meta-analysis
Sampling
Juries
Jurors
Simulation
Liability
lack
Verdict
Damage
Sentencing

Keywords

  • juries
  • juror decision making
  • meta-analysis
  • verisimilitude

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and human behavior, 41(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223

Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research : A meta-analysis. / Bornstein, Brian H; Golding, Jonathan M.; Neuschatz, Jeffrey; Kimbrough, Christopher; Reed, Krystia; Magyarics, Casey; Luecht, Katherine.

In: Law and human behavior, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.02.2017, p. 13-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bornstein, BH, Golding, JM, Neuschatz, J, Kimbrough, C, Reed, K, Magyarics, C & Luecht, K 2017, 'Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis', Law and human behavior, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
Bornstein BH, Golding JM, Neuschatz J, Kimbrough C, Reed K, Magyarics C et al. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and human behavior. 2017 Feb 1;41(1):13-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
Bornstein, Brian H ; Golding, Jonathan M. ; Neuschatz, Jeffrey ; Kimbrough, Christopher ; Reed, Krystia ; Magyarics, Casey ; Luecht, Katherine. / Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research : A meta-analysis. In: Law and human behavior. 2017 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 13-28.
@article{25cb5fcfe9e74f3cbd203d0d04cd326b,
title = "Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research.",
keywords = "juries, juror decision making, meta-analysis, verisimilitude",
author = "Bornstein, {Brian H} and Golding, {Jonathan M.} and Jeffrey Neuschatz and Christopher Kimbrough and Krystia Reed and Casey Magyarics and Katherine Luecht",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/lhb0000223",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "13--28",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Bornstein, Brian H

AU - Golding, Jonathan M.

AU - Neuschatz, Jeffrey

AU - Kimbrough, Christopher

AU - Reed, Krystia

AU - Magyarics, Casey

AU - Luecht, Katherine

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research.

AB - The advantages and disadvantages of jury simulation research have often been debated in the literature. Critics chiefly argue that jury simulations lack verisimilitude, particularly through their use of student mock jurors, and that this limits the generalizabilty of the findings. In the present article, the question of sample differences (student v. nonstudent) in jury research was meta-analyzed for 6 dependent variables: 3 criminal (guilty verdicts, culpability, and sentencing) and 3 civil (liability verdicts, continuous liability, and damages). In total, 53 studies (N = 17,716) were included in the analysis (40 criminal and 13 civil). The results revealed that guilty verdicts, culpability ratings, and damage awards did not vary with sample. Furthermore, the variables that revealed significant or marginally significant differences, sentencing and liability judgments, had small or contradictory effect sizes (e.g., effects on dichotomous and continuous liability judgments were in opposite directions). In addition, with the exception of trial presentation medium, moderator effects were small and inconsistent. These results may help to alleviate concerns regarding the use of student samples in jury simulation research.

KW - juries

KW - juror decision making

KW - meta-analysis

KW - verisimilitude

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007240683&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007240683&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000223

DO - 10.1037/lhb0000223

M3 - Article

C2 - 27762572

AN - SCOPUS:85007240683

VL - 41

SP - 13

EP - 28

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 1

ER -