國立虎尾科技大學 |

Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories./
作者:	Sandberg, Pamela N.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (61 pages)
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International85-06.
標題:	Social psychology. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798381157635

Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories.
Sandberg, Pamela N.

Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories. - 1 online resource (61 pages)

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.

Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

For decades, researchers have found that jurors are consistently unable - or unwilling - to disregard inadmissible evidence when instructed to do so by a judge. The legal system ignores the problem entirely: judges have repeatedly affirmed that a judge's instructions to disregard are a sufficient safeguard of defendants' constitutional rights, regardless of whether the jury actually disregards the inadmissible evidence. This study tested four interventions derived from psychological research to identify the combination that most effectively helped jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (operationalized by lower conviction rates). It was hypothesized that the most effective interventions identified in Study 1 would yield significantly lower conviction rates when compared to traditional instructions to disregard in Study 2. The interventions were tested in Study 1 using Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) methodology to identify the optimized intervention package through regression analysis. Study 2 served as a randomized controlled trial in which treatment as usual (a judge's instructions to disregard) was compared to the optimized intervention package. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) be exposed to no inadmissible evidence, (2) receive inadmissible evidence and treatment as usual, (3) receive inadmissible evidence, treatment as usual and the optimized intervention package, or (4) receive the inadmissible evidence without objection. Logistic regression revealed that jurors who were given an instruction to disregard produced lower conviction rates when they also received the optimized intervention package. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798381157635Subjects--Topical Terms:

554804
Social psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

DisregardIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories.
LDR:03112ntm a22003977 4500 001 1143370
005 20240517100417.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798381157635
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30695543
035 $a AAI30695543
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Sandberg, Pamela N. $3 1468043
245 1 0 $a Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Testing Interventions Derived From Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (61 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.
500 $a Advisor: O'Hara, Karey.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a For decades, researchers have found that jurors are consistently unable - or unwilling - to disregard inadmissible evidence when instructed to do so by a judge. The legal system ignores the problem entirely: judges have repeatedly affirmed that a judge's instructions to disregard are a sufficient safeguard of defendants' constitutional rights, regardless of whether the jury actually disregards the inadmissible evidence. This study tested four interventions derived from psychological research to identify the combination that most effectively helped jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (operationalized by lower conviction rates). It was hypothesized that the most effective interventions identified in Study 1 would yield significantly lower conviction rates when compared to traditional instructions to disregard in Study 2. The interventions were tested in Study 1 using Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) methodology to identify the optimized intervention package through regression analysis. Study 2 served as a randomized controlled trial in which treatment as usual (a judge's instructions to disregard) was compared to the optimized intervention package. Participants were randomly assigned to either (1) be exposed to no inadmissible evidence, (2) receive inadmissible evidence and treatment as usual, (3) receive inadmissible evidence, treatment as usual and the optimized intervention package, or (4) receive the inadmissible evidence without objection. Logistic regression revealed that jurors who were given an instruction to disregard produced lower conviction rates when they also received the optimized intervention package. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 554804
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Psychology. $3 555998
653 $a Disregard
653 $a Inadmissible evidence
653 $a Interventions
653 $a Jurors
653 $a Multiphase Optimization Strategy
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0621
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0451
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Psychology. $3 1183983
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 85-06.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30695543 $z click for full text (PQDT)