The acceptability and utility of voir dire questionnaires in Florida Circuit Civil Court

This study examined the acceptability and utility of the content of an extensive automobile tort voir dire questionnaire in Florida Circuit Civil Court. The ultimate purpose was to find questionnaire items from established measures that have demonstrated utility in uncovering biases that were at the same time not objectionable to the courts. The survey instrument included a venireperson questionnaire that used case-specific attitudinal and personality measures as well as typical information asked about personal history. The venireperson questionnaire incorporated measures that have proven reliable in other personal injury studies (Hans, & Lofquist, 1994). In order to examine judges' ratings, the questionnaire items were grouped into eight categories. Claims Consciousness scale measures general attitudes towards making claims based on one's legal rights. Belief in a Just World measures how sympathetic the juror would be to people who have suffered injuries. Political Efficacy is another general attitude scale that identifies attitudes towards the government. Litigation Crisis scales elicits attitudes about civil litigation. Case Specific Beliefs about Automobile Accidents and Litigation were taken from questionnaires developed and used in auto torts and other personal injury cases. Juror's personal history was divided into Demographics and Trial Relevant Attitudes. Ninety-seven circuit civil judges critiqued the questionnaire for acceptability, relevance to the type of case presented, and usefulness to attorneys for determining peremptories. ^ The majority of judges' responses confirmed that the central dimension in judicial thinking is juror qualification rather than juror partiality. Only three of the eight voir dire categories were considered relevant by more than 50 percent of the judges: Trial Relevant Experiences, Juror Demographics, and Tort Reform. Additionally, several acceptable items from generally disapproved categories were identified among the responses. These were general and case specific attitudinal items that are related to tort reform. We discuss the utility of voir dire items for discerning juror partiality. ^

Assessing the construct validity of a measure of learning agility

This study examined the construct validity of the Choices questionnaire that purported to support the theory of Learning Agility. Specifically, Learning Agility attempts to predict an individual's potential performance in new tasks. The construct validity will be measured by examining the convergent/discriminant validity of the Choices Questionnaire against a cognitive ability measure and two personality measures. The Choices Questionnaire did tap a construct that is unique to the cognitive ability and the personality measures, thus suggesting that this measure may have considerable value in personnel selection. This study also examined the relationship of this pew measure to job performance and job promotability. Results of this study found that the Choices Questionnaire predicted job performance and job promotability above and beyond cognitive ability and personality. Data from 107 law enforcement officers, along with two of their co-workers and a supervisor resulted in a correlation of .08 between Learning Agility and cognitive ability. Learning Agility correlated .07 with Learning Goal Orientation and. 17 with Performance Goal Orientation. Correlations with the Big Five Personality factors ranged from −.06 to. 13 with Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience, respectively. Learning Agility correlated .40 with supervisory ratings of job promotability and correlated .3 7 with supervisory ratings of overall job performance. Hierarchical regression analysis found incremental validity for Learning Agility over cognitive ability and the Big Five factors of personality for supervisory ratings of both promotability and overall job performance. A literature review was completed to integrate the Learning Agility construct into a nomological net of personnel selection research. Additionally, practical applications and future research directions are discussed. ^

Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision-making

In attempting to impeach eyewitnesses, attorneys often highlight inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall. This study examined the differential impact of types of inconsistent testimony on mock-juror decisions. Each of 100 community members and 200 undergraduates viewed one of four versions of a videotaped trial in which the primary evidence against the defendant was the testimony of the eyewitness. I manipulated the types of inconsistent statements given by the eyewitness in the four versions: (1) consistent testimony, (2) information given on-the-stand but not given during the pre-trial investigation, (3) contradictions between on-the-stand and pre-trial statements, and (4) contradictions made on the witness stand. Subjects exposed to any form of inconsistent testimony were less likely to convict and found the defendant less culpable and the eyewitness less effective. These effects were larger for contradictions than for information given on the stand but not during pre-trial investigations. ^

The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Death qualification is a part of voir dire that is unique to capital trials. Unlike all other litigation, capital jurors must affirm their willingness to impose both legal standards (either life in prison or the death penalty). Jurors who assert they are able to do so are deemed “death-qualified” and are eligible for capital jury service: jurors who assert that they are unable to do so are deemed “excludable” or “scrupled” and are barred from hearing a death penalty case. During the penalty phase in capital trials, death-qualified jurors weigh the aggravators (i.e., arguments for death) against the mitigators (i.e., arguments for life) in order to determine the sentence. If the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend death; if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend life. The jury is free to weigh each aggravating and mitigating circumstance in any matter they see fit. Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., Luginbuhl & Middendorf, 1988). However, these studies utilized the now-defunct Witherspoon rule and did not include a case scenario for participants to reference. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11 th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification. ^

Jurors' use of social framework evidence

Monahan and Walker (1988) delineated three uses of social science evidence within the courts: social authority, social fact, and social framework. Social authority evidence is social science evidence used in making policy or law. Social fact evidence is social science evidence that describes research undertaken expressly for the case at hand. Social framework evidence involves providing conclusions from previously conducted social science research to assist jurors in evaluating the other evidence in the case. Although this type of evidence has traditionally been presented via expert testimony, Monahan and Walker (1988) have suggested that, because the social science research involved comes from the extant literature and is not the province of any particular expert, it would be more economical to have the judge present this information as part of the judicial instructions to the jury. This study tested the implicit assumption that the presentation of the social framework evidence by the judge will have the same impact on juror verdicts as presentation of this evidence by an expert. ^ Two hundred mock jurors watched a videotaped hostile work environment sexual harassment trial. The social framework evidence consisted of the discussion of factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of sex stereotyping of women by men. The trial included either no social framework evidence, social framework evidence presented by the expert, or social framework evidence presented in judicial instructions. ^ Results indicated that men who heard the social framework evidence from the judge were more likely to vote for the defendant than men who heard no social framework evidence. Men who heard the judicial instruction with the social framework evidence also rated the plaintiff as less credible than the other men and women in the study. Thus, it appears that, for men, social framework evidence presented by the judge harms the plaintiff's case by reducing ratings of her credibility, but the same evidence presented by an expert does not affect men's verdicts. For women, however, social framework evidence, irrespective of who presents it, enhances the plaintiff's case. ^

The National Institute of Justice guide for eyewitness identification evidence: Can it improve juror decision-making?

Mistaken eyewitness identifications of innocent lead to more false convictions in the United States than any other cause. In response to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness evidence, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1999 published a Guide for the gathering and preservation of eyewitness evidence by law enforcement personnel. Previous research has shown that eyewitness identifications are more accurate when obtained using procedures recommended in the NIJ Guide. This experiment assessed whether informing jurors about the Guide can improve their ability to discriminate between eyewitness identifications likely to be accurate and those likely to be inaccurate and, if so, how to most effectively provide jurors with such information. ^ Seven hundred sixteen U.S. citizens who reported for criminal jury duty participated. Half of the participant jurors read a summary of an armed robbery trial in which the police followed the NIJ Guide when obtaining an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The other half read about an identical case in which the police did not follow the Guide. Jurors received information about the Guide from a court-appointed expert witness, one of the attorneys in the case, the trial judge, the judge in combination with one of the attorneys, or from no one (in the control groups). Jurors then rendered a verdict in the case and answered questions about the evidence in the case. ^ When an expert witness or the judge (either alone or in combination with one of the attorneys) informed jurors about the Guide, the jurors voted to convict defendants likely to be guilty and to acquit defendants likely to be innocent more often than did uninformed jurors assigned to a control group. These data suggest that informing jurors about the NIJ Guide using expert testimony or instructions from a judge will improve the quality and accuracy of jurors' verdict decisions in cases involving eyewitness identification evidence. However, more research is needed to determine whether the judge will remain an effective source of information about the Guide in a longer, more detailed trial scenario and to learn more about the underlying psychological processes governing the effects observed in this experiment. ^

The effects of defendant account on damage award decisions

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the manner in which civil defendants account for their behavior influences compensatory and punitive damage awards. Jurors read three civil trial summaries, in which I manipulated injury severity (high vs. low), defendant reprehensibility (high vs. low), defendant status (individual vs. corporate), and account (concession, excuse, justification or refusal) in a factorial design. I also included four control groups in which the defendant stipulated liability. In all other conditions, participants read that a jury had found the defendant negligent. Only defendant reprehensibility influenced punitive awards. Both plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility influenced compensatory awards. When individuals offered justifications and when corporations offered excuses, jurors awarded lower compensatory awards against low reprehensibility defendants than against high reprehensibility defendants. Negligence stipulations led to lower damage awards for individuals than for corporations. Additionally, concessions tended to produce lower awards when combined with a stipulation of negligence as opposed to a jury decision. These findings support the hypothesis that in cases in which the defendant is clearly negligent, circumstances exist in which stipulating negligence and offering an apologetic account will lead to reduced damage awards decisions. Results indicate that individual and corporate defendants offering justifications and refusals should first consider the reprehensibility of their actions. In a broader realm, findings demonstrate that the manner in which a jury perceives the explanation given by the defendant is dependent upon defendant characteristics and case-specific factors. ^

Individual differences influencing context effects in responding to items assessing conscientiousness in a personality test

Context effects in a personality scale were examined by determining if conscientiousness scale (C) scores were significantly different when administered alone vs. part of a Five Factor Model inventory (Big5). The effectiveness of individual difference variables (IDVs) as predictors of the context effect was also examined. The experiment compared subjects who completed the full Big5 once and the C alone once (Big5/C or C/Big5) to subjects who complete either the Big5 inventory twice (Big5/Big5) or the C twice (C/C). No significant differences were found. When Big5/C and C/Big5 groups were combined, IDVs were tested, and only the field dependence variable (R2 = .06) was found to significantly predict the context effect. However, the small R2 minimized concerns of context effects in Big5 inventories. ^

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^

Improving civil jury decision-making: Evidentiary and procedural issues

The civil jury has been under attack in recent years for being unreliable and incompetent. Considering the myriad causes for poor civil juror decision-making, the current investigation explores both procedural and evidentiary issues that impact juror's decisions. Specifically, the first phase of this dissertation examines how jurors (mis)use evidence pertaining to the litigants when determining liability and awarding damages. After investigating how jurors utilize evidence, the focus shifts to exploring the utility of procedural reforms designed to improve decision-making (specifically revising the instructions on the laws in the case and bifurcating the damage phases of the trial). Using the results from the first two phases of the research, the final study involves manipulating pieces of evidence related to the litigants while exploring the effects that revising the judicial instructions have on the utilization of evidence in particular and on decision-making in general. ^ This dissertation was run on-line, allowing participants to access the study materials at their convenience. After giving consent, participants read the scenario of a fictitious product liability case with the litigant manipulations incorporated into the summary. Participants answered several attitudinal, case-specific, and comprehension questions, and were instructed to find in favor of one side and award any damages they felt warranted. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit and linear regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data (M-plus and SPSS were the software packages used to conduct the analyses). Results indicated that misuse of evidence was fairly frequent, though the mock jurors also utilized evidence appropriately. Although the results did not support bifurcation as a viable procedural reform, revising the judicial instructions did significantly increase comprehension rates. Trends in the data suggested that better decision-making occurred when the revised instructions were used, thus providing empirical support for this procedural reform as a means of improving civil jury decision-making. Implications for actual trials and attorneys are discussed. ^

Predicting jurors' decisions: The effects of repeated expression and forewarning in civil voir dire

To help lawyers uncover jurors' attitudes and predict verdict, litigation experts recommend that attorneys encourage jurors to repeatedly express their attitudes during voir dire. While social cognitive literature has established that repeated expression of attitudes increases accessibility and behavior predictability, the persuasive twist on the method exercised in trials deserves empirical investigation. Only one study has examined the use of repeated expression within a legal context with the results finding that the tactic increased accessibility, but did not influence the attitude verdict relationship. This dissertation reexamines the ability of civil attitudes to predict verdict in a civil trial and investigates the use of repeated expression as a persuasive tactic utilized by both parties (Plaintiff and Defense) within a civil voir dire in an attempt to increase attitudinal strength, via accessibility, and change attitudes to better predict verdict. This project also explores potential moderators, repetition by the opposing party and the use of a forewarning, to determine their ability to counter the effects of repeated expression on attitudes and verdict.^ This dissertation project asked subjects to take on the role of jurors in a civil case. During the voir dire questioning session, the number of times the participants were solicited to express their attitudes towards litigation crisis by both parties was manipulated (one vs. five). Also manipulated was the inclusion of a forewarning statement from the plaintiff, within which mock jurors were cautioned about the repeated tactics that the defense may use to influence their attitudes. Subsequently, participants engaged in a response latency task which measured the accessibility of their attitudes towards various case-related issues. After reading a vignette of a fictitious personal injury case, participants rendered verdict decisions and responded to an attitude evaluation scale. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that the act of repeated expression influenced both the accessibility and value of litigation crisis attitudes thus increasing the attitude-verdict relationship, but only when only one party engaged in it. Furthermore, the forewarning manipulation did moderate the effect of repeated expression on attitude change and verdict, supporting our hypothesis.^

Development and testing of the Elderly Social Vulnerability Index (ESVI): A composite indicator to measure social vulnerability in the Jamaican elderly population

Over the last two decades social vulnerability has emerged as a major area of study, with increasing attention to the study of vulnerable populations. Generally, the elderly are among the most vulnerable members of any society, and widespread population aging has led to greater focus on elderly vulnerability. However, the absence of a valid and practical measure constrains the ability of policy-makers to address this issue in a comprehensive way. This study developed a composite indicator, The Elderly Social Vulnerability Index (ESVI), and used it to undertake a comparative analysis of the availability of support for elderly Jamaicans based on their access to human, material and social resources. The results of the ESVI indicated that while the elderly are more vulnerable overall, certain segments of the population appear to be at greater risk. Females had consistently lower scores than males, and the oldest-old had the highest scores of all groups of older persons. Vulnerability scores also varied according to place of residence, with more rural parishes having higher scores than their urban counterparts. These findings support the political economy framework which locates disadvantage in old age within political and ideological structures. The findings also point to the pervasiveness and persistence of gender inequality as argued by feminist theories of aging. Based on the results of the study it is clear that there is a need for policies that target specific population segments, in addition to universal policies that could make the experience of old age less challenging for the majority of older persons. Overall, the ESVI has displayed usefulness as a tool for theoretical analysis and demonstrated its potential as a policy instrument to assist decision-makers in determining where to target their efforts as they seek to address the issue of social vulnerability in old age. Data for this study came from the 2001 population and housing census of Jamaica, with multiple imputation for missing data. The index was derived from the linear aggregation of three equally weighted domains, comprised of eleven unweighted indicators which were normalized using z-scores. Indicators were selected based on theoretical relevance and data availability.

A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviors

The purpose of this study was to better understand the study behaviors and habits of university undergraduate students. It was designed to determine whether undergraduate students could be grouped based on their self-reported study behaviors and if any grouping system could be determined, whether group membership was related to students’ academic achievement. A total of 152 undergraduate students voluntarily participated in the current study by completing the Study Behavior Inventory instrument. All participants were enrolled in fall semester of 2010 at Florida International University. The Q factor analysis technique using principal components extraction and a varimax rotation was used in order to examine the participants in relation to each other and to detect a pattern of intercorrelations among participants based on their self-reported study behaviors. The Q factor analysis yielded a two factor structure representing two distinct student types among participants regarding their study behaviors. The first student type (i.e., Factor 1) describes proactive learners who organize both their study materials and study time well. Type 1 students are labeled “Proactive Learners with Well-Organized Study Behaviors”. The second type (i.e., Factor 2) represents students who are poorly organized as well as being very likely to procrastinate. Type 2 students are labeled Disorganized Procrastinators. Hierarchical linear regression was employed to examine the relationship between student type and academic achievement as measured by current grade point averages (GPAs). The results showed significant differences in GPAs between Type 1 and Type 2 students at the .05 significance level. Furthermore, student type was found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement beyond and above students’ attribute variables including sex, age, major, and enrollment status. The study has several implications for educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in terms of improving college students' learning behaviors and outcomes.

Age differences and conformity in juror decision -making

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate whether older adults conform more than young and middle-aged adults on a juror decision making task. Degree of group pressure, personality characteristics, gender, and social influence processes were also examined.^ Registered voters (208 participants) completed a personality questionnaire. Several weeks later, groups of six participants listened to a robbery case that portrayed the defendant as guilty. Afterwards, participants completed the first of two ballots. On the first, participants rated the defendant's degree of guilt and scored their degree of certainty in this verdict rating. They also indicated in writing which piece of information (a statement of evidence) from the robbery case supported their verdict ratings. Next, participants reviewed photocopies of five contrived first ballots. Then participants completed second ballots, in which they again rated the defendant's degree of guilt and scored their degree of certainty in this verdict rating. Finally, participants rated the importance of the five contrived first ballot verdict ratings (normative social influence) and statements of evidence (informational social influence) in reaching their second ballot verdict ratings.^ The results demonstrated that not only did older adults conform as expected, but all age groups conformed; that is, all age groups changed their verdict ratings. After reviewing the other jurors' contrived first ballots (group pressure), participants rated the defendant as less guilty on their second ballot than on their first. However, only older adults significantly changed their level of certainty in their verdict ratings from first to second ballot compared to young and middle-aged adults. With regard to personality characteristics, only rigidity predicted conformity in young and middle-aged adults but not in older adults. It was also found that females conformed more than males. Finally, all three age groups reported that different social influence processes (normative vs. informational) were important in reaching their second ballot verdict ratings. The results of this research indicate that various factors can influence young, middle-aged, and older adults as they reach verdicts. Knowledge of these factors may help alter stereotypes of older adults in terms of conformity, rigidity, and desirability as jurors. ^

How effective is the motion-to -suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures

The motion-to-suppress safeguard is designed to prevent false eyewitness identifications from leading to wrongful convictions. This safeguard is effective only if judges are sensitive to factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. The present study assessed judicial sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Judges $(N=99)$ read a description of a hypothetical crime, perpetrator, and identification procedure, followed by a motion to suppress the identification. Judges completed a questionnaire in which they ruled on the motion and rated the lineup's suggestiveness and fairness. Foil bias and instruction bias influenced judges' rulings and lineup evaluations as predicted. Hypotheses concerning presentation bias were not supported. Results suggest a need to standardize and record identification procedures and to further educate judges about psychological research on eyewitness memory. ^