Mock jury research: Where do we go from here?

Richard L. Wiener, Daniel A. Krauss, Joel D. Lieberman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)467-479
Number of pages13
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume29
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2011

Fingerprint

Research
construct validity
Diamond
Social Sciences
research process
credibility
social science
Research Personnel
threat
Psychology
paradigm
interaction
community

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Mock jury research : Where do we go from here? / Wiener, Richard L.; Krauss, Daniel A.; Lieberman, Joel D.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 29, No. 3, 01.05.2011, p. 467-479.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Wiener, Richard L. ; Krauss, Daniel A. ; Lieberman, Joel D. / Mock jury research : Where do we go from here?. In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2011 ; Vol. 29, No. 3. pp. 467-479.
@article{085657d016e54fdf8bcfb71ed0e4863d,
title = "Mock jury research: Where do we go from here?",
abstract = "This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Krauss, {Daniel A.} and Lieberman, {Joel D.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/bsl.989",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "467--479",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mock jury research

T2 - Where do we go from here?

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Krauss, Daniel A.

AU - Lieberman, Joel D.

PY - 2011/5/1

Y1 - 2011/5/1

N2 - This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

AB - This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbell's traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamond's call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research program's credibility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960445849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960445849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bsl.989

DO - 10.1002/bsl.989

M3 - Review article

C2 - 21706517

AN - SCOPUS:79960445849

VL - 29

SP - 467

EP - 479

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 3

ER -