Methodology matters: comparing sample types and data collection methods in a juror decision-making study on the influence of defendant race

References

• Baker, M. A., Fox, P., & Wingrove, T. (2016). Crowdsourcing as a forensic psychology research tool. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 34(1), 37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, J. A., & Lanza, B. A. (2013). Conducting psychology student research via Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing service. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 385–394.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues inpersuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among amazon mechanical turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. doi: 10.1037/law0000006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571. doi: 10.1023/A:1024831908377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the expression and assessment of racial prejudice. In H. J. Knopke, R. J. Norrell, & R. W. Rogers (Eds.), Opening doors: Perspectives on race relations in contemporary america (pp. 119–148). Tuscabosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Frye v. United States. 292 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
   Google Scholar
• Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. Dovidio, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 61–89). Toronto: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. M., Brown, D. L., & Boice, R. (2012). Using Amazon’s mechanical Turk website to measure accuracy of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 9(4), 532–534. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. A. (1988). Loglinear analysis of cross-classified ordinal data: Applications in developmental research. Child Development, 59(1), 1–25. doi: 10.2307/1130385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., Tubb, V. A., & Granillo, E. A. (2011). Town vs. Gown: A direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 452–466. doi: 10.1002/bsl.970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31(3), 433–438. doi: 10.3758/BF03200723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, S. R., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 376–394. doi: 10.1002/bsl.971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), 545–567. doi: 10.1007/BF01499374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(2), 124–148. doi: 10.1037/a0016309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Krauss, D. A., Heen, M., & Sakiyama, M. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Professional perceptions of jury decision-making research practices. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34, 495–514. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., McManus, L. A., & Capaldi, C. (2016). Race-crime congruency in the Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science /Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 48(2), 162–170. doi:10.1037/cbs0000045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & McManus, L. A. (2015). Race salience in Canada: Testing multiple manipulations and target races. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(4), 442–451. doi:10.1037/law0000057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Saliba, P. (2015). The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision making in a sexual assault trial. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 62–79. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2014.915325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe, J. G., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2010). Reality check: A comparison of college students and a community sample of mock jurors in a simulated sexual violent predator civil commitment. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 28, 730–750. doi: 10.1002/bsl.902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 621–637. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neil, K. M., & Penrod, S. D. (2001). Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(2), 226–233. doi: 10.3758/BF03195369
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipierotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse, S. V. (2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 304–307. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuller, R. A., Kazoleas, V., & Kawakami, K. (2009). The impact of prejudice screening procedures on racial bias in the courtroom. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 320–328. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9153-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow database on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial compositionon jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). “Race salience” in juror decision-making: Misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 599–609. doi: 10.1002/bsl.877
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. (2008). Ethnocultural portrait of Canada highlight tables, 2006 census. Government of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004a). In class and online: Using discussion boards in teaching. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 7(4), 395–401. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.395
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004b). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ugwuegbu, D. C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133–146. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(79)90025-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodtke, G. T. (2012). The impact of education on intergroup attitudes: A multiracial analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 80–106. doi: 10.1177/0190272511430234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar