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

The Greatest Memory Teacher Ever: Review of \u3ci\u3eMemory’s Ghost: The Nature of Memory and The Strange Tale of Mr. M.,\u3c/i\u3e by Philip J. Hilts

Although psychologists and neurologists have been familiar with the case of H.M. for years, this small volume makes his story—and what it can teach us about the functioning of memory—accessible to a much wider audience. Hilts has done a good job of piecing together H.M.’s early life, in the absence of any living relatives and all but a few written records. He recreates the life of a very normal youth in the 1930s and 1940s; normal, that is, until H.M.’s first epileptic seizure. In 1954, after several other treatments for the epilepsy had failed, H.M. (at age 27) had a bilateral medial temporal lobectomy, in the hope that it would alleviate his seizures. A neurosurgeon removed large sections of both temporal lobes, as well as much of the limbic system, including the amygdala and hippocampus. Since the surgery, H.M.—who was still alive when the book was written—suffers from a pervasive anterograde amnesia. In particular, H.M. has contributed greatly to our understanding of the neuroanatomy of memory and implicit memory

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

Signs for the Future of Civil Justice Research

The chapters in the present volume [Civil Juries and Civil Justice (New York: Springer, 2008)] provide a number of signs for the future of civil justice research. Many of the signs are favorable and point to continued fruitful collaborations between legal and psychological researchers on pressing topics in the justice arena with important policy implications; yet the contributions also highlight several gaps in the literature, data limitations, and false steps. In other words, some of the signs are not-so-favorable, and there is still much work to be done. In this concluding commentary, I identify the major portents for the future, both good and bad

From Compassion to Compensation: The Effect of Injury Severity on Mock Jurors’ Liability Judgments

Two studies were performed to ascertain the effect of injury severity on participants’ judgments in a simulated jury task. Participants read a summary of a personal-injury case in which the severity of the plaintiff’s injury was varied: they were asked to judge the defendant’s liability, award compensation, and rate their feelings toward the litigants. In Study 1, more severely hurt plaintiffs were more likely to obtain a favorable verdict, even though evidence of liability was held constant. Greater severity influenced liability judgments only insofar as it elicited positive feelings toward the plaintiff or negative feelings toward the defendant. In Study 2, severity was found to have no effect when participants could not award damages, suggesting that more severe injuries arouse feelings for the litigants that are associated with a motivation to alleviate the plaintiffs suffering or to punish the defendant. Strategies for reducing the extralegal influence of injury severity are discussed

Juror Sensitivity to the Cross-Race Effect

Black and White mock jurors’ sensitivity to the cross-race effect was investigated by varying the race of the eyewitness in a simulated murder trial of a Black defendant. Participants heard an audiotape of a trial after which they rendered a verdict and rated the credibility of the witnesses. White participants found the prosecution witnesses (including the eyewitness) more credible, and the defense witness less credible, than did Black participants; they were also more likely to find the defendant guilty. The Black eyewitness was perceived as more credible than was the White eyewitness, but eyewitness race had no effect on verdict. These results are consistent with the literature indicating that jurors of different races reach different verdicts, and also that jurors are relatively insensitive to factors that affect eyewitness testimony, such as the cross-race effect

Extra-Legal Factors and Product Liability: The Influence of Mock Jurors’ Demographic Characteristics and Intuitions about the Cause of an Injury

Two experiments were performed to investigate the role of extra-legal factors in a simulated product liability trial. In cases where the factual evidence was identical, subjects’ liability judgments varied as a function of the case-specific factor of the alleged source of the plaintiff’s injury. In deciding cases differently depending on the alleged cause, subjects relied on intuitions about what injury sources are more or less likely to cause a certain kind of injury. Juror- specific factors also influenced subjects’ verdicts. There was no difference between students and non-students, but race and SES—factors that are often correlated with student status—did affect subjects’ verdicts. Low-SES and minority subjects were more likely to find the defendant liable than high-SES and white subjects. The results are considered in terms of general decision-making processes, and the implications for jury selection and mock jury research are discussed