Perceived realism and the CSI-effect

References

• Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129. doi:10.1002/acp.1171
   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, 170. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353. doi:10.1023/A:1015380522722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 297–313. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<297::AID-ACP578>3.0.CO;2-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93–117. doi:10.1177/1075547009340343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busselle, R. W. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3, 43–67. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0301_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cable News Network. (2005). Blake found not guilty in wife’s killing. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/blake.case/index.html?iref=newssearch
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clancy, D., & Bull, R. (2015). The effect on mock-juror decision-making of power-of-speech within eyewitness testimony and types of scientific evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22, 425–435. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.960029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, A. S., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2009). Investigating the ‘CSI Effect’ effect: Media and litigation crisis in criminal law. Stanford Law Review, 61, 1335–1373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, S. A., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2007). CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden of proof. New England Law Review, 41, 435–470.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Stolle, D. P., & Studebaker, N. (2007). Deliberation quality: A preliminary examination in criminal juries. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 273–303. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00089.x
   Google Scholar
• Fort, K., Adda, G., & Cohen, K. B. (2011). Amazon mechanical turk: Gold mine or coal mine? Computational Linguistics, 37, 413–420. doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172–194. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, J. M., Stewart, T. L., Yozwiak, J. A., Djadali, Y., & Sanchez, R. P. (2000). The impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 5, 373–383.10.1177/1077559500005004009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Tait, D. (2006). DNA and the changing face of justice. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 97–106. doi:10.1080/00450610609410636
   Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P., Kaye, D. H., Dann, B. M., Farley, E. J., & Albertson, S. (2011). Science in the jury box: Jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 60–71. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9222-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2013). Community members’ perceptions of the CSI effect. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 216–235. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9166-2
   Google Scholar
• Horton, J. J., & Chilton, L. B. (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. doi:10.1145/1807342.1807376
   Google Scholar
• Houck, M. M. (2006). CSI: Reality. Scientific American, 295, 84–89. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0706-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, L., Wagner, C., & Nardi, B. (2015). Not just in it for the money: A Qualitative investigation of workers’ perceived benefits of micro-task crowdsourcing. System Sciences (Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2015.98
   Google Scholar
• Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury and the death penalty. The University of Chicago Law Review, 33, 769–781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2011). If the shoe fits they might acquit: The value of forensic science testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 21–48. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 51–67. doi:10.1177/0963662510367571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Corbett, R. (2015). Beyond frequency: Perceived realism and the CSI effect. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 83–114. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2013.E44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., Ewanation, L. A., & Monnink, J. (2016). Jurors’ perceptions of evidence: The relative influence of DNA and eyewitness testimony when presented by opposing parties. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 1–10, doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., & Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 122–133. doi:10.1002/acp.1550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancini, D. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: Is it moderated by need for cognition? North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 155–174.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s1342801101246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 436–453. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & van Giezen, A. (2013). Accuracy, confidence and consistency in repeated recall of events. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 629–642. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2012.660152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
   Google Scholar
• Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2010). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 673–690. doi:10.1002/acp.1578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittman, M., & Sheehan, K. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a digital sweatshop? Transparency and accountability in crowdsourced online research. Journal of Media Ethics, 31, 260–262. doi:10.1080/23736992.2016.1228811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podlas, K. (2006). The CSI effect: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429–466.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 159–174. doi:10.1080/08838158609386617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quick, B. L. (2009). The effects of viewing Grey's Anatomy on perceptions of doctors and patient satisfaction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 38–55. doi:10.1080/08838150802643563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895. doi:10.1126/science.1111565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 174–179. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, N., & Saks, M. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, 47, 357–364.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, E. D., Kim, S. Y., & Barak, G. (2006). A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the “CSI-Effect” exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331–368.
   Google Scholar
• Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 614–630. doi:10.1177/009385480102800504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. D. (2005). Effects of visual and verbal sexual television content and perceived realism on attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 130–137. doi:10.1080/00224490509552266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050–1085. doi:10.2307/20455645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar