Identifying Juror Bias: Moving from Assessment and Prediction to a New Generation of Jury Selection Research

One of the behavioral assumptions made by the legal system that has attracted attention is the notion that jurors can make decisions which are free from bias. In an attempt to ensure that seated juries are comprised of jurors who are free from bias, venirepersons (i.e., potential jurors) are interviewed in a pretrial procedure called voir dire. During this procedure, venirepersons respond to questions that are designed to elicit responses that will allow judges and attorneys to evaluate whether they may have knowledge or biases that would interfere with the duty to evaluate the evidence fairly and make decisions that comport with the law. In this chapter, the psychological assumptions of legal actors about the identification of venireperson bias during voir dire, and the extent to which the process results in the removal of problematic jurors from jury service, are reviewed. The empirical literature from the first generation of jury selection research was devoted to identifying traits or developing attitudinal measures that predict juror verdicts. The chapter contains a review of several studies that represent a new generation of jury selection research that moves beyond mere prediction of venirepersons’ verdict inclinations to an evaluation of the extent to which social cognitive and social influence processes interfere with judges’ and attorneys’ abilities to effectively exercise challenges to venirepersons’ potential jury service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 42.79 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Decision-Making in the Courtroom: Jury

Incentivized to Testify: Informant Witnesses

Lessons Learned from Wrongful Convictions: Implications for Judicial Reform and Innocence Research

References

• Batson v. Kentucky. (1986). 476 U.S. 79. Google Scholar
• Blue, L. A. (1991). Jury selection in a civil case. Trial Lawyers Quarterly, 21, 11–25. Google Scholar
• Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734–750. Google Scholar
• Bray, R. M., & Noble, A. M. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1424–1430. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1424. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 175–184. doi:10.1023/A:1014640025871. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229–266). San Diego, CA: Academic. Google Scholar
• Cosper, C. A. (2003). Rehabilitation of the juror rehabilitation doctrine. Georgia Law Review, 37, 1471–1508. Google Scholar
• Crocker, C. B. (2011). An investigation of the psychological processes involved in juror rehabilitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Google Scholar
• Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 212–226. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9193-9. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crocker, C., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Systematic jury selection. In R. L. Wiener & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 13–31). New York: Springer. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Moran, G. P., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165–182. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90052-6. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819–832. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00926.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., Saks, M., & Landsman, S. (1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 300–325. Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., & Zeisel, H. (1974). A courtroom experiment on juror selection and decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 276–277. doi:10.1177/014616727400100193. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382–394. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–109). New York: Academic. Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74. doi:10.1037/h0035872. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990a). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233–259. Google Scholar
• Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990b). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works? Ohio Northern University Law Review, 17, 229–253. Google Scholar
• Garcia, L., & Griffitt, W. (1978). Evaluation and recall of evidence: Authoritarianism and the Patty Hearst case. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 57–67. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(78)90083-1. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323–345. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.323. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Giewat, G. R. (2001). Juror honesty and candor during voir dire questioning: The influence of impression management. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62.Google Scholar
• Greathouse, S. M., Otis, C. C., Kennard, J. B., Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Attorney expectations influence the voir dire process. Manuscript in preparation. Google Scholar
• Greathouse, S. M., Sothmann, F. C., Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 427–439. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9247-z. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death-qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121–132. doi:10.1007/BF01044355. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Hodgins, H. S., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Beyond selecting information: Biases in spontaneous questions and resultant conclusions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 387–407. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1018. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. (1994). 114 S.Ct. 1419. Google Scholar
• Jones, S. E. (1987). Judge- versus attorney-conducted voir dire: An empirical investigation of juror candor. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 131–146. doi:10.1007/BF01040446. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(83)90070-3. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kennard, J. B., Otis, C. C., Austin, J. L., Zimmerman, D. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Behavioral confirmation in voir dire: Effects on jury selection and verdict choices. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545–567. doi:10.1007/BF01499374. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (2013). Jury selection. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58–75. doi:10.1177/0146167295211007. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kravitz, D., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi:10.1007/BF01044688. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lamberth, J., Krieger, E., & Shay, S. (1982). Juror decision making: A case of attitude change mediated by authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 419–434. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(82)90003-4. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2002). Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 455–463. doi:10.1023/A:1016335422706. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2010–2038. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2009). Predicting guilt judgments and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors. Psychology Crime and Law, 15, 619–634. doi:10.1080/10683160802477757. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Louden, J. E., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Constructing insanity: Jurors’ prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 449–470. doi:10.1002/bsl.760. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Luginbuhl, J., & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors’ responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 263–281. doi:10.1007/BF01044384. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Marques, J., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Middendorf, K., & Luginbuhl, J. (1995). The value of a nondirective voir dire style in jury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 129–151. doi:10.1177/0093854895022002003. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law & Psychology Review, 18, 309–328. Google Scholar
• Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331–348. Google Scholar
• Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 239–256. doi:10.1023/A:1025798204956. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34–42. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.34. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Neises, M. L., & Dillehay, R. C. (1987). Death qualification and conviction proneness: Witt and Witherspoon compared. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 479–494. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370050411. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Nietzel, M. T., Dillehay, R. C., & Himelein, M. J. (1987). Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 467–477. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370050410. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., & Brauner, S. (2007). Bias in jury selection: Justifying prohibited peremptory challenges. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 467–479. doi:10.1002/bdm.571. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 443–470. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Olczak, P. V., Kaplan, M. F., & Penrod, S. (1991). Attorneys’ lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 431–452. Google Scholar
• Otis, C. C., Greathouse, S. M., Kennard, J. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Hypothesis-testing in attorney-conducted voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 392–404. doi:10.1037/lhb0000092. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters, M., & Lecci, L. (2012). Predicting verdicts, adherence to judge’s instructions, and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 817–831. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.566872. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Phares, E., & Wilson, K. G. (1972). Responsibility attribution: Role of outcome severity, situational ambiguity, and internal-external control. Journal of Personality, 40, 392–406. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00069.x. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rose, M. R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one country. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 695–702. doi:10.1023/A:1022393506784. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons’ attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623–648. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skov, R. B., & Sherman, S. J. (1986). Information-gathering processes: Diagnosticity, hypothesis-confirmatory strategies, and perceived hypothesis confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93–121. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90031-4. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Snyder, M., & Haugen, J. A. (1994). Why does behavioral confirmation occur? A functional perspective on the role of the perceiver. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 218–246. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1011. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1202. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Race-based judgments, race-neutral justifications: Experimental examination of peremptory use and the Batson challenge procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 261–273. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stukas, A., & Snyder, M. (2002). Targets’ awareness of expectations and behavioral confirmation in ongoing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 31–40. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1487. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis-testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Weigel, R. H., & Newman, L. S. (1976). Increasing attitude-behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793–892. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.6.793. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors’ verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01467.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Werner, C. M., Kagehiro, D. K., & Strube, M. J. (1982). Conviction proneness and the authoritarian juror: Inability to disregard information or attitudinal bias? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 629–636. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.629. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). The jury on trial: Comparing legal assumptions with psychological evidence. In N. E. Grunberg, R. E. Nisbett, J. Rodin, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), A distinctive approach to psychological research: The influence of Stanley Schachter (pp. 27–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, D. M., Otis, C. C., Kennard, J. B., Austin, J. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2014). Behavioral confirmation during voir dire: The effects of biased voir dire questions on juror decision-making. Manuscript in preparation. Google Scholar

Acknowledgment

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers 0520617 and 0921408, awarded to the first author. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA Margaret Bull Kovera
2. University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA Jacqueline L. Austin

1. Margaret Bull Kovera