Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence

References

• Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. (ABE; 2011). Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London, UK: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 170–177. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenthal, J. A. (1993). A wipe of the hands, a lick of the lips: The validity of demeanor evidence in assessing witness credibility. Nebraska Law Review, 72(1), 1157–1207.
   Google Scholar
• Bollingmo, G., Wessel, E., Sandvold, Y., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2009). The effect of biased and non-biased information on judgments of witness credibility. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(1), 61–71. doi:10.1080/10683160802131107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1998). From compassion to compensation: The effect of injury severity on mock jurors' liability judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1477–1502. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01687.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., & ForsterLee, L. (1993). Effects of technicality and access to trial transcripts on verdicts and information processing in a civil trial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(2), 220–227. doi:10.1177/0146167293192012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Brigham, J. C. (1990). Target person distinctiveness and attractiveness as moderator variables in the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identifications. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11(1), 101–115. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1101_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Psychological Society (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. British Psychological Society: Leicester
   Google Scholar
• Cao, Y., Theune, M., & Nijholt, A. (2010). Cognitive-aware modality allocation in intelligent multimodal information presentation. In L. Shao, C. Shan, J. Luo & M. Etoh (Eds.), Multimedia Interaction and Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 61–83). London, UK: Springer London.
   Google Scholar
• Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 291–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (1999), (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behaviour, 20(4), 379–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, I. R., & Thomson, D. M. (2014). Opening up a can of worms: How do decision-makers decide when witnesses are telling the truth? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(4), 475–491. doi:10.1080/13218719.2013.837803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for improving juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(14), 1197–1207.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fortworth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T. (1995). Social cognition. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology, pp. 148–193. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Golding, J. M., Fryman, H. M., Marsil, D. F., & Yozwiak, J. A. (2003). Big girls don't cry: The effect of child witness demeanor on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(11), 1311–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemsley, G. D., & Doob, A. N. (1978). The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator's credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 136–142. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1978.tb00772.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behaviour, 18(1), 29–51. doi:10.1007/BF01499142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer, B. D., Blake, L., & Plass, J. L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786–797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2000). The consolidation of plaintiffs: The effects of number of plaintiffs on jurors' liability decisions, damage awards, and cognitive processing of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 909–918. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.6.909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., Victor, E., Bourgeois, M. J., & ForsterLee, L. (2001). The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 641–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Brolly, I. (1997). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 757–768. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. London, UK: Allen Lane
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46(3), 567–581. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.3.567.1640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamin, K. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 89–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 489. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00838.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76(1), 733–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleider, H. M., Knuycky, L. R., & Cavrak, S. R. (2012). Deciding the fate of others: The cognitive underpinnings of racially biased juror decision making. The Journal of General Psychology, 139(3), 175–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholm, T. (2005). Group-based biases and validity in eyewitness credibility judgments: Examining effects of witness ethnicity and presentation modality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1474–1501. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02180.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malavanti, K. F. (2012). Knowledge updating in jurors: cognitive load affects juror decision making. ( Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Baylor University, Waco, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02861.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikonova, O., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2005). Mock jurors' perceptions of child witnesses: The impact of judicial warning. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 37(1), 1–19. doi:10.1037/h0087241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, H. M., Anderson, D. W. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2013). Cautioning jurors regarding co-witness discussion: The impact of judicial warnings. Psychology, Crime and Law, 19(3), 287–304. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.631539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17(4), 398–422. DOI: 10.3758/BF03202613
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision-making: the story model. Cardoza Law Review, 13, 497.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. S. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1(4), 817–845. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2009). Does Trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 673–690. doi:10.1002/acp.1578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta psychologica 104(1), 1–15. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. v. Popescu. (2010). England and Wales Court of Appeal, UK. Criminal Division 1230.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Sardar. (2012). England and Wales Court of Appeal, UK. Criminal Division 134.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Welstead. (1996). 1 Criminal Appeal Reports 59.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behaviour, 25(4), 409–431. doi:10.1023/A:1010659703309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruva, C. L., & Bryant, J. B. (2004). The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), 1919–1944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors' decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1266–1280. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02170.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1991). The law of cognitive structure activation. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 169–184. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_18
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. C., & Greene, E. (2005). Conduct and its consequences: Attempts at debiasing jury judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 505–526. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5692-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2002). Affecting the perception of verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 35–49. doi:10.1002/acp.851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamborini, R., Huang, R.-H., Mastro, D., & Nabashi-Nakahara, R. (2007). The influence of race, heuristics, and information load on judgements of guilt and innocence. Communication Studies, 58(4), 341–358.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? London, UK: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257–287. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagstaff, G. F., Wheatcroft, J. M., Cole, J., Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Blackmore, V., & Pilkington, A. (2007). Some cognitive and neuropsychological aspects of social inhibition and facilitation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 828–846. doi:10.1080/09541440701469749
   Google Scholar
• Wheatcroft, J. M., & Ellison, L. E. (2012). Evidence in Court: Witness preparation and cross-examination style effects on adult witness accuracy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 821–840. doi:10.1002/bsl.2031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheatcroft, J. M., Wagstaff, G. F., & Kebbell, M. R. (2004). The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(1), 83–101. doi:10.1348/135532504322776870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheatcroft, J. M., & Woods, S. (2010). Effectiveness of witness preparation and cross-examination non-directive and directive leading question styles on witness accuracy and confidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 14(3), 187–207. doi:10.1350/ijep.2010.14.3.353
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. R., Farmer, L. C., Lee, R. E., & Cundick, B. P. (1975). Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation: A comparison of live, color video, black-and-white video, audio, and transcript presentations. Bigham Young Uuniversity Law Review, 1975(2), 375–422.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav, A., Phillips, M. M., Lundeberg, M. A., Koehler, M. J., Hilden, K., & Dirkin, K. H. (2011). If a picture is worth a thousand words is video worth a million? Differences in affective and cognitive processing of video and text cases. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 15–37. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9042-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar