Mock jury research: where do we go from here?

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.

Reality check: a comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment.

Despite concerns about generalizability, past mock trial research has concluded that effects of sample (i.e., students versus representative mock jurors) are negligible.

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments.

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases.

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) to juror decision-making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing.

Firing back at the backfire effect: the influence of mortality salience and nullification beliefs on reactions to inadmissible evidence.

Two studies were conducted to explore psychological factors that contribute to the influence of inadmissible evidence (i.e., the backfire effect) on jurors' verdicts.