TY - JOUR
T1 - The Impact of Minimal Versus Extended Voir Dire and Judicial Rehabilitation on Mock Jurors’ Decisions in Civil Cases
AU - Salerno, Jessica M.
AU - Campbell, John C.
AU - Phalen, Hannah J.
AU - Bean, Samantha R.
AU - Hans, Valerie P.
AU - Spivack, Daphna
AU - Ross, Lee
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge funding for this project from the Civil Justice Research Initiative at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They would also like to acknowledge and thank Kevin Morrow for his assistance with legal research. These data were presented by Jessica M. Salerno at the 2020 Experimental Methods in Legal Scholarship Conference (EMLS) at Northwestern University. We thank Kenworthey Bilz and Avani Mehta Sood for their helpful commentary on a draft of this article as a part of the EMLS conference.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Psychological Association
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objectives: Three experiments tested the utility of minimal versus extended voir dire questions in predicting mock jurors’ verdicts and damage awards, and whether the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments could be reduced by judicial rehabilitation. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that extended voir dire questions would be more predictive of case judgments than minimal voir dire questions. We hypothesized that judicial rehabilitation would not reduce this impact of preexisting attitudes on case judgments. Method: Across three experiments, each focusing on a different civil case (insurance bad faith, wrongful birth, medical malpractice misdiagnosis), online participants (N = 2,041; 62% female; 77% White, 9% African American, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Hispanic or Latino/a; Mage = 40) were paid MTurk workers. They were randomly assigned to experience (a) no voir dire, minimal voir dire focusing on previous legal experience and self-identification of biases, or extended voir dire focusing on specific attitudes about civil litigation, parties, and laws, and (b) no judicial rehabilitation, or judicial rehabilitation, before judging the case. Participants read a civil case, made case judgments, and completed bias awareness measures. Results: Demographic information and minimal voir dire questions did not predict case judgments, but the majority of extended voir dire responses predicted verdicts and damage awards. Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments—but did result in mock jurors reporting that they were less biased, despite judicial rehabilitation not actually reducing their bias. Conclusions: Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases has little utility. Further, although judicial rehabilitation might make jurors think that they are less biased, it may not actually reduce the impact of their preexisting attitudes on their case decisions.
AB - Objectives: Three experiments tested the utility of minimal versus extended voir dire questions in predicting mock jurors’ verdicts and damage awards, and whether the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments could be reduced by judicial rehabilitation. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that extended voir dire questions would be more predictive of case judgments than minimal voir dire questions. We hypothesized that judicial rehabilitation would not reduce this impact of preexisting attitudes on case judgments. Method: Across three experiments, each focusing on a different civil case (insurance bad faith, wrongful birth, medical malpractice misdiagnosis), online participants (N = 2,041; 62% female; 77% White, 9% African American, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Hispanic or Latino/a; Mage = 40) were paid MTurk workers. They were randomly assigned to experience (a) no voir dire, minimal voir dire focusing on previous legal experience and self-identification of biases, or extended voir dire focusing on specific attitudes about civil litigation, parties, and laws, and (b) no judicial rehabilitation, or judicial rehabilitation, before judging the case. Participants read a civil case, made case judgments, and completed bias awareness measures. Results: Demographic information and minimal voir dire questions did not predict case judgments, but the majority of extended voir dire responses predicted verdicts and damage awards. Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments—but did result in mock jurors reporting that they were less biased, despite judicial rehabilitation not actually reducing their bias. Conclusions: Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases has little utility. Further, although judicial rehabilitation might make jurors think that they are less biased, it may not actually reduce the impact of their preexisting attitudes on their case decisions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119194016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85119194016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000455
DO - 10.1037/lhb0000455
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85119194016
SN - 0147-7307
VL - 45
SP - 336
EP - 355
JO - Law and human behavior
JF - Law and human behavior
IS - 4
ER -