Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias.

Jonathan D. Casper, Kennette Benedict, Jo L. Perry

1989-09-01articleLaw and Human Behavior115 citationsclosed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Jury Decision Making Processes Legal processes and jurisprudence Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Abstract

This study examines juror decision making in civil suits against police officers alleged to have engaged in illegal searches, using simulated case materials and mock jurors drawn both from adults called for jury service and a student subject pool. The experiment assesses the impact of a cognitive process (thehindsight bias) and of individual attitudes on awards and finds that both are related to juror decisions. We test a theoretical model that specifies that both attitudes and outcome knowledge exercise their influence upon the damage award decision by means of their impact on interpretation of testimony. Causal models of the decision-making process appear to support the role played by interpretation of evidence as a mediator between individual attributes and juror decisions.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 115 citations exist upstream.

References

1975Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.

1981Psychological status of the script concept.

2010Journal of Applied Social Psychology

1974Hindsight-foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.

1975I knew it would happen

2003Hindsight != foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty

1984Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes.

1979A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics.

Cited by

1992Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury

1997What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process.

2000Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence.

2003Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards.

1999Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damages.

1993Evaluation of auditor decisions: Hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap

1992Jurors' Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implications for the Litigation Explosion Debate

2003Hindsight bias in political elections