Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SPSP Annual Meeting 2010

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerwin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Shaffer, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kerwin, J.
Right arrow Articles by Shaffer, D. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mock Jurors Versus Mock Juries: The Role of Deliberations in Reactions to Inadmissible Testimony

Jeffrey Kerwin

Westat, Inc.

David R. Shaffer

University of Georgia

The consensus among authors in the area of juridic decision making is that trial jurors often readily disregard judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence. Perhaps, however, the moderating influence of a key methodological variable-the presence or absence of group deliberations-has been overlooked by those making this assertion. It was hypothesized that mock juries (who participate in deliberations) would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible testimony than mock jurors (responding individually, without deliberations). Results supported this hypothesis.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 2, 153-162 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167294202002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
S. R. Sommers and S. M. Kassin
On the Many Impacts of Inadmissible Testimony: Selective Compliance, Need for Cognition, and the Overcorrection Bias
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, October 1, 2001; 27(10): 1368 - 1377.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
S. Fein, A. L. McCloskey, and T. M. Tomlinson
Can the Jury Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, November 1, 1997; 23(11): 1215 - 1226.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
S. M. Kassin and S. R. Sommers
Inadmissible Testimony, Instructions to Disregard, and the Jury: Substantive Versus Procedural Considerations
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, October 1, 1997; 23(10): 1046 - 1054.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
K. Edwards and T. S. Bryan
Judgmental Biases Produced by Instructions to Disregard: The (Paradoxical) Case of Emotional Information
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 1997; 23(8): 849 - 864.
[Abstract]