Trust in the Jury System as a Predictor of Juror/Jury Decisions

To determine whether jurors’ attitudes are correlated with their verdicts and judgments at trial, the present experiments examined the relationship between individuals’ trust in the jury system, other legal attitudes, and their verdict judgments, at both the individual (juror) and group (jury) level. We used a binary logistic regression model to examine the factors—jury instructions and individual difference measures—that contribute to a juror’s verdict. The results indicate that jurors with higher PJAQ and JUST scores had a higher likelihood of voting guilty on a homicide trial involving a mercy killing. It was also found that the majority of juries in the second study took a verdict-based approach, and jurors with less trust in the jury system participated more in deliberation than high trust jurors

How Does Stress at Time of Identification Affect Eyewitness Memory

Research has revealed that stress at the time of the event has a negative effect on eyewitness memory; however, research is lacking on stress at the time of the identification. The present research set out to determine how stress at the time of an identification affects eyewitness memory for an event. In order to test this research question, the present study utilized the Socially Evaluated Cold Pressor Task (SECPT; event stress, or D1) and Trier Social Stress Test (identification stress, or D2), and their non-stress counterparts (friendly-Trier Social Stress Test, control-Cold Pressor Task; c-CPT) across two sessions. The SECPT/c-CPT procedures introduced To-Be-Remembered-stimuli that participants were subsequently tested on during the recall and recognition tasks. Participants in the stress induction conditions (both D1 and D2) had significantly higher cortisol levels, blood pressure/heart rate, and subjective stress than participants in the non-stress induction conditions (both D1 and D2). Results of the memory tests revealed that participants recalled significantly more central details than peripheral details, regardless of stress condition. There was a more pronounced effect of D1 stress on peripheral than on central details, though this finding was not consistent across recall and recognition tasks. Additionally, there were no significant differences in lineup accuracy across stress and control conditions for D1 or D2, although stress at D1 (but not stress at D2) marginally increased choosing behavior. Results revealed a significant confidence-accuracy correlation, which varied across conditions. Lastly, there was some support for the main research question, such that participants in the control condition at D2 remembered significantly more details than participants in the stress condition at D2. Although this finding was not consistent across all memory tests, it presents some evidence to support the hypothesis that stress occurring at the time of identification (retrieval) may negatively affect memory, regardless of whether the event itself was stressful

How Does Stress at Time of Identification Affect Eyewitness Memory

Research has revealed that stress at the time of the event has a negative effect on eyewitness memory; however, research is lacking on stress at the time of the identification. The present research set out to determine how stress at the time of an identification affects eyewitness memory for an event. In order to test this research question, the present study utilized the Socially Evaluated Cold Pressor Task (SECPT; event stress, or D1) and Trier Social Stress Test (identification stress, or D2), and their non-stress counterparts (friendly-Trier Social Stress Test, control-Cold Pressor Task; c-CPT) across two sessions. The SECPT/c-CPT procedures introduced To-Be-Remembered-stimuli that participants were subsequently tested on during the recall and recognition tasks. Participants in the stress induction conditions (both D1 and D2) had significantly higher cortisol levels, blood pressure/heart rate, and subjective stress than participants in the non-stress induction conditions (both D1 and D2). Results of the memory tests revealed that participants recalled significantly more central details than peripheral details, regardless of stress condition. There was a more pronounced effect of D1 stress on peripheral than on central details, though this finding was not consistent across recall and recognition tasks. Additionally, there were no significant differences in lineup accuracy across stress and control conditions for D1 or D2, although stress at D1 (but not stress at D2) marginally increased choosing behavior. Results revealed a significant confidence-accuracy correlation, which varied across conditions. Lastly, there was some support for the main research question, such that participants in the control condition at D2 remembered significantly more details than participants in the stress condition at D2. Although this finding was not consistent across all memory tests, it presents some evidence to support the hypothesis that stress occurring at the time of identification (retrieval) may negatively affect memory, regardless of whether the event itself was stressful

Trust in the Jury System as a Predictor of Juror/Jury Decisions

To determine whether jurors’ attitudes are correlated with their verdicts and judgments at trial, the present experiments examined the relationship between individuals’ trust in the jury system, other legal attitudes, and their verdict judgments, at both the individual (juror) and group (jury) level. We used a binary logistic regression model to examine the factors—jury instructions and individual difference measures—that contribute to a juror’s verdict. The results indicate that jurors with higher PJAQ and JUST scores had a higher likelihood of voting guilty on a homicide trial involving a mercy killing. It was also found that the majority of juries in the second study took a verdict-based approach, and jurors with less trust in the jury system participated more in deliberation than high trust jurors

Calibration in Court_NSF_Study 2_Jury Deliberation

This 2nd part of an NSF-funded project is designed as a jury simulation experiment with a diverse samples of community participants to 1) identify individual difference factors that predict people's ability to rely appropriately on scientific evidence, 2) investigate the effectiveness of a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired safeguard compared to traditional safeguards to enhance people's ability to rely appropriately on scientific evidence, and 3) assess the role of scientific evidence in jury deliberation, especially as a function of evidence quality, individual differences, and safeguards