Transcript Slide 1

(2) Locating Studies
Overview

General Information to keep in mind:



A meta-analysis is only informative if it adequately
summarizes the existing literature
HOWEVER, it does not have to be comprehensive
(fail-safe n) but needs to be close to comprehensive
Techniques - database searches, ancestry approach,
descendancy approach, hand searching, invisible
college
Available approaches
(from Johnson & Eagly, 2000)
(1) Database searches

Which databases?




Depends on topic
Obviously PsycINFO
Ask Librarian if other databases are relevant
Which search terms?



For studies in hand, see “Descriptors”
For studies in hand, see “Identifiers”
Use wildcards: juror*
Available approaches
(from Johnson & Eagly, 2000)
(2) Ancestry approach




Search reference list of articles in hand
What to do about referenced unpublished?
What to do about referenced poster/talk?
What to do about foreign language?
Available approaches
(from Johnson & Eagly, 2000)
(3) Descendancy approach



Use “cited by” feature in PsycINFO?
What about SSCI?
What if there are differences between the two?
Available approaches
(from Johnson & Eagly, 2000)
(4) Hand searching





Scan individual journals
Provides a good cross-check
May find “hidden” articles
May find new Descriptors / Identifiers
Don’t spend too much time on this
Available approaches
(from Johnson & Eagly, 2000)
(5) Invisible college



Using the network of researchers
Email listservs
When in the process should you send the email?

The best time to send the email is: (1) after you have finished your
first pass through finding ES for each study because then you will
have a clear idea of what you need and how to craft the email letter
appropriately, (2) but before you have your coders start coding,
otherwise you will have to re-do the coding for the new studies.
Overarching Principles
(1) Inclusion/Exclusion criteria




Locating Studies (Step 2) goes hand-in-hand with
Identifying Hypothesis (Step 1)
This is partly an a-priori determination of what to
investigate
This is partly an on-going dynamic process where you
review the literature and decide what to investigate
This is partly an ad-hoc statement or summary of what
you investigated
Overarching Principles
(2) Explicit and open to scrutiny



Must detail in “Method” how you found sources so
must cover all your bases, otherwise reviewers may
argue about your methods
So read “Method” sections of other meta-analyses for
information and copy best ones
Keep a record of what search terms you used, what
databases you used, etc.
See page 19-20 of my Quals for example
Overarching Principles
(3) Comprehensive?



“Garbage in – Garbage out”
If cast too wide a net and need to trim down, then try
setting conceptual boundaries such type of IV, type of
DV, domain, paradigm, etc.
Ideally comprehensive but doesn’t have to be
comprehensive (fail-safe n) but needs to be close to
comprehensive
Overarching Principles
(4) Inaccessible?


For articles listed as “unpublished” or “in press”,
contact the authors
For articles in a foreign language, if there is no English
translation, then report in Method section which
articles were inaccessible due to language issues
Concrete Steps:

Create an excel file
(See website “Example-DataSet1”)

Why this helps:






Have listing of each article you have found
Sort them into those with relevant data and those without (see
bottom of excel file)
For those with relevant data, can start inserting effect sizes (Step
3) and moderators (Step 5)
For those without relevant data, can type in “notes” about why it
is not relevant (you will need this information later to report in
“Method” section your exclusion/inclusion criteria)
Since listing of each article you found, when come across a new
article, can see if you already found it
Within excel file type in article reference (APA format) so can
copy/paste whole thing into your papers “Reference” section
Concrete steps (cont.)

Things to keep in mind


In example excel file, Step 2 is only columns A, B, C
(other columns are Steps 3, 4, 5)
In your excel file, you may create as many columns as
you need
the example excel file is a cleaned-up version of one I used but
the actual one has a lot of information unique to the particular
meta. See next slide for my actual excel file by double-clicking
numb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
number1 cat1
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
35
36
38
39
41
42
44
45
47
48
49
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
88
89
90
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
114
115
116
117
118
121
122
123
124
125
126
129
130
subcat1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
subcat2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
100
100
1
100
2
100
2
3
1
100
3
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
article year title source
study
measure1_title
measure2_original
measure3_haveit ivtype1
ivtype2
n
Lamberth,
(1982).
J., Kreiger,
Juror decision
E.,
Journal
& Shay,
making:
of Research
S.
(Study
A case
1)
in Personality,
of Traditional
attitude change
16,Authoritarianism
419-434.
mediated by authoritarianism.
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism
1
2
84
Lamberth,
(1982).
J., Kreiger,
Juror decision
E.,
Journal
& Shay,
making:
of Research
S.
(Study
A case
2)
in Personality,
of Traditional
attitude change
16,Authoritarianism
419-434.
mediated by authoritarianism.
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism
1
2
120
Lamberth,
(1982).
J., Kreiger,
Juror decision
E.,
Journal
& Shay,
making:
of Research
S.
(Study
A case
3)
in Personality,
of Traditional
attitude change
16,Authoritarianism
419-434.
mediated by authoritarianism.
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism
1
2
300
Moran, G.,
(1989).
& Cutler,
Dispositional
B.InL.B. L.predictors
Cutler (Chair),
of criminal
Contemporary
Traditional
case verdicts.
psychological
Authoritarianism
and legal perspectives on jury
Traditional
selection.
yAuthoritarianism
Symposium conducted
1
at the 97th Annual
2 Convention
345
of the American Psychological Association, New Orlean,
Werner, C.
(1982).
M., Kagehiro,
Conviction
Journal
D.proneness
K.,of&Applied
Strube,
andPsychology,
M.
the J.authoritarian
Traditional
5, 629-636.
juror:
Authoritarianism
Inability to disregard
- Byrne and
information
Lamberth
or attitudinal
Traditional
bias?
check
Authoritarianism
for this
from 1Mitchell-Byrne, 1974 2
149
Werner, C.
(1982).
M., Kagehiro,
Conviction
Journal
D.proneness
K.,of&Applied
Strube,
andPsychology,
M.
the J.authoritarian
Traditional
5, 629-636.
juror:
Authoritarianism
Inability to disregard
- Byrne and
information
Lamberth
or attitudinal
Traditional
bias?
check
Authoritarianism
for this
from 1Mitchell-Byrne, 1973 2
111
Bray, R. (1978).
M., & Noble,
Authoritarianism
A.
Journal
M. of and
Personality
decisions
andofSocial
Traditional
mock juries:
Psychology,
Authoritarianism
Evidence
36, of
1424-1430.
jury
- Byrne
bias and
andgroup
Lamberth
polarization.
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism - F-scale
1
- 22 item acquiesence
2
free
280
Sue, S., (1975).
Smith, R.
Authoritarianism,
E., &
Psychological
Pedroza,pretrial
G. Reports,
publicity
37,Traditional
and
1299-1302.
awareness
Authoritarianism
of bias in simulated
- Byrne and
jurors.
Lamberth Traditional yAuthoritarianism, 22 item
1
acquiesence free2versio119
from Byrne and Lamberth, 1971
Garcia, L.,
(1978).
& Griffitt,
Evaluation
W.Journal
andof
recall
Research
of evidence:
in Personality,
Traditional
Authoritarianism
12,Authoritarianism
57-67.
and the Patty
- Byrne
Hearst
andcase.
Lamberth Traditional yes
Authoritarianism 22-item
1 acquiences free Byrne
2
and
50lambert 1971
Garcia, L.,
(1978).
& Griffitt,
Authoritarianism-situation
W.Journal of Researchinteractions
in Personality,
Traditional
in the
12,Authoritarianism
determination
469-478
of -punitiveness:
Byrne and Lamberth
Engaging authoritarian
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism
ideology.
22-item
1 acquiences free Byrne
2
and
160lambert 1971
Garcia, L.,
(1978).
& Griffitt,
Authoritarianism-situation
W.Journal of Researchinteractions
in Personality,
Traditional
in the
12,Authoritarianism
determination
469-479
of -punitiveness:
Byrne and Lamberth
Engaging authoritarian
Traditional yes
Authoritarianism
ideology.
22-item
1 acquiences free Byrne
2
and
160lambert 1971
Griffitt, W.,
(1979).
& Garcia,
Reversing
L.Social
T. Authoritarian
Psychology
punitiveness:
Quarterly,
Traditional
42,
The55-61.
impact
Authoritarianism
of verbal conditioning.
- Byrne and Lamberth Traditional check
Authoritarianism
for this
22-item
1 F scale from Cherry
2 and Byrne
80
1977
Mitchell, (1973).
H., & Byre,
The defendant's
D.Journal ofdilemma:
Personality
Effects
and Social
Traditional
of jurors'
Psychology,
attitudes
Authoritarianism
and
25,authoritarianism
123-129.
- Byrne and on
Lamberth
judicial decision.
Traditional yAuthoritarianism 22-item
1 acquiences free Byrne
2
and
139lambert 1971
Boliver, S.
(1999).
E. The effects
Dissertation
of attorney
Abstracts
race and
International:
use
Traditional
of racially
Section
Authoritarianism
relevant
B: The
arguments
Sciences
- California
on and
juror
F-scale
Engineering
decision-making.
Calfirnia
Vol 60(4-B),
F see
Oct
text
1999, pp. 19111
2
190
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a1)"death
84, 567-611.
Traditional
qualified" jury
Authoritarianism
on the guilt determination
- California F-scale
process. Traditional yes
Authoritarianism - California
1
F-scale
2
211
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(male
mockSocial
participants)
jurors'Psychology,
verdicts
Traditional
in aAuthoritarianism
20,
rape
901-919.
case.
- California F-scale
California F-scale
yes
by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick,
1
Levison
2 and163
Sanford, 1950).
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a2)"death
84, 567-611.
Traditional
qualified" jury
Authoritarianism
on the guilt determination
- California F-scale
process. Traditional yes
Authoritarianism - California
1
F-scale
2
211
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(female
mockSocial
jurors'
participants)
Psychology,
verdicts
Traditional
in aAuthoritarianism
20,
rape
901-919.
case.
- California F-scale
California F-scale
yes
by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick,
1
Levison
2 and175
Sanford, 1950).
Moran, G.,
(1982).
& Comfort,
Scientific
J.
Journal
C.
juror of
selection:
Personality
Sexand
as aSocial
Traditional
moderator
Psychology,
Authoritarianism
of demographic
43, 1052-1063.
-and
Balanced
personality
F scale
predictors
Athanasiou
of impaneled
NO
Balanced
felonyFjuror
scale
behavior.
(Robinson
1
& Shaver, 1973)
2
147
Rosen, A.
(1997).
P.
FactorsDissertation
affecting juror
Abstracts
decision-making
International:
Traditional
in repressed-memory
Section
Authoritarianism
B: The Sciences
cases.
- Balanced
andFEngineering
scale
Balances
Vol 58(1-B),
F-scale
see
Jultext
1997, pp. 0449 1
2
120
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
1)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- Submissive Feelings about
Authoritarianism,
Authority
NO
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 1=submissive
197
feelings about authority
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
2)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- Submissive Feelings about
Authoritarianism,
Authority
NO
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 1=submissive
197
feelings about authority
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
2)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- General Aggressiveness
Authoritarianism,
and Hostility
NO
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 3=general
197
aggressiveness and hostility
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
1)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- General Aggressiveness
Authoritarianism,
and Hostility
NO
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 3=general
197
aggressiveness and hostility
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
1)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- Intolerant Attitudes toward
Authoritarianism,
SexualNO
Behavior
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 2=intolerant
197
attitudes toward sexual behavior
Sealy, A.(1981).
P.
AnotherLaw
lookand
at Human
social
(Rape
psychological
Behavior,
Case, Defendant
Traditional
5, 187-200.
aspects
2)Authoritarianism
of juror bias.
- Intolerant Attitudes toward
Authoritarianism,
SexualNO
Behavior
says three factors
1 from Rubenowtiz, 11965. 2=intolerant
197
attitudes toward sexual behavior
Moran, G.,
(1989).
& Cutler,
Dispositional
B.InL.B. L.predictors
Cutler (Chair),
of criminal
Contemporary
Traditional
case verdicts.
psychological
Authoritarianism
and- Bronson
legal perspectives on jury
Traditional
selection.
NO
Authoritarianism
Symposium conducted
- Bronson
1
at the 97th Annual
2 Convention
345
of the American Psychological Association, New Orlean,
Wasieleski,
(1996).
D. T.Criminal
Dissertation
justice attitudes,
Abstracts
personality,
International:
Traditional
attributions,
Section
Authoritarianism
crime
B: Theseverity,
Sciences
- Right
demographics,
Wing
and Engineering
Authoritarianism
andRWA
Vol
the prediction
57(2-B),
–
Scale
Right
yes,
Aug
Wing
ofsee
juror
1996,
Authoritarianism
text
decision-making.
pp. 14961 Scale
1
352
Chapdelaine,
(1997).
A.,Beliefs
& Griffin,
Journal
of guilt
S. F.of
and
Social
recommended
Issues, 53,
Traditional
sentence
477-485.as
Authoritarianism
a function of juror
- Christie
bias in the O. J. Simpson
Authoritarianism
trial. NO Scale by Christie,
1 1991
1
125
Boehm, V.
(1968). Mr. Prejudice,
Wisconsin
Miss
Law
Sympathy,
Review, 734-750.
and
Legal
theAttitudes
authoritarian
Questionnaire
personality:(LAQ)
An application of psychologicalyes
measuring techniques
2 to the problems of jury
1 bias.
151
Cutler, B.(1992).
L., Moran,
Jury G.,
selection
Journal
& Narby,
in
of insanity
Research
D.(Study
J. defense
2)
in Personality,
Legal
cases.
Attitudes
26, 165-182.
Questionnaire (LAQ)
yes
2
1
61
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a1)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
1: Authoritarianism yes
2
1
187
Moran, G.,
(1989).
& Cutler,
Dispositional
B.InL.B. L.predictors
Cutler (Chair),
of criminal
Contemporary
Legal
caseAttitudes
verdicts.
psychological
Questionnaire
and legal
(LAQ)
perspectives on jury selection.
yesSymposium conducted
2
at the 97th Annual
1 Convention
345
of the American Psychological Association, New Orlean,
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a1)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
2: Equalitarian
yes
2
1
187
Moran, G.,
(1982).
& Comfort,
Scientific
J.
Journal
C.
juror of
selection:
Personality
Sexand
as aSocial
Legal
moderator
Attitudes
Psychology,
of demographic
Questionnaire
43, 1052-1063.
and
(LAQ)
personality predictors of impaneled
yes felony juror behavior.
2
1
124
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a2)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
2: Equalitarian
yes
2
1
187
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a1)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
3: Anti-Authoritarianism
yes
2
1
187
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a2)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
1: Authoritarianism yes
2
1
187
Cowan, C.
(1984).
L., Thompson,
The effects
LawW.
and
ofC.,
death
Human
& Ellsworth,
qualification
Behavior,
P. on
C.
Legal
8, juror's
53-79.
Attitudes
predisposition
Questionnaire
to convict
(LAQ)
on the quality of deliberation. yes
2
1
288
Jurow, G.(1971). New data
Harvard
on the
Law
effect
(Case
Review,
of a2)"death
84, 567-611.
Legal
qualified"
Attitudes
jury on
Questionnaire
the guilt determination
(LAQ) - Part
process.
3: Anti-Authoritarianism
yes
2
1
187
Covey, K.(1981).
H.
MurderDissertation
vs. assault: Abstracts
Verdicts, legal
International
Legal
attitudes,
Attitudes
Voland
42(1-B),
Questionnaire
attributions
Jul 1981,
of mock
(LAQ)
pp. 427
jurors.
see text
2
1
122
Hurst, D.(2005).
R., & Foley,
FilicideL.
American
and
A. insanity
Journal
defense:
of Forensic
Legal
Revised
authoritarianism
Psychology,
Legal Attitudes
23,and
81-91.
empathy
Questionnaire
as predictors
(RLAQ23)
of guilt.
yes
2
1
66
Solana, E.
(1998).
D., Garcia,
Some J.,
individual
Psychology,
& Tamayo,
differences
Crime,
I. M. and
in perception
Law,
Revised
4, 361-373.
of
Legal
the evidence
Attitudesand
Questionnaire
the verdict choice.
(RLAQ23) - Spanish version
yes, of
don’t
LAQ23
need(Garcian,
spanish
2 De
version
La Fuente,
since I De
have
La
1 english
Fuente,
77 1997).
Skeem, J.
(2004).
L., Louden,
Venirepersons'
J.
Law
E.,and
& Evans,
attitudes
Human
(Study
J.Behavior,
toward
1)
the
Revised
28,insanity
623-648.
Legal
defense:
Attitudes
Developing,
Questionnaire
refining,
(RLAQ23)
and validating a scale.yes
2
1
135
Kassin, S.
(1983).
M., &The
Wrightsman,
construction
Journal of
L. Research
S.
and
(Study
validation
1)
in Personality,
ofJuror
a juror
Bias
bias
17,
Scale
scale.
423-442.
yes
2
1
49
Kassin, S.
(1983).
M., &The
Wrightsman,
construction
Journal of
L. Research
S.
and
(Study
validation
2)
in Personality,
ofJuror
a juror
Bias
bias
17,
Scale
scale.
423-442.
yes
2
1
48
Kassin, S.
(1983).
M., &The
Wrightsman,
construction
Journal of
L. Research
S.
and
(Study
validation
3)
in Personality,
ofJuror
a juror
Bias
bias
17,
Scale
scale.
423-442.
yes
2
1
32
Gallun, E.
(1983).
Z., & Kassin,
The effect
Unpublished
S.ofM.the insanity
(Study
Manuscript.
defense
1)
Juror
and its
Bias
consequences
Scale
on jury verdicts.
yes
2
1
110
Dexter, H.
(1992).
R., Cutler,
A testB.of
Journal
L.,
voir&dire
Moran,
of Applied
as aG.
remedy
SocialforPsychology,
Juror
the prejudicial
Bias Scale
22,effects
819-832.
of pretrial publicity.
yes
2
1
68
Narby, D.(1990).
J., & Cutler,
Pilot study
B.
Unpublished
L. for Cutler,
raw
Moran,
data and Juror
Narby,
Bias
1992.
Scale
yes
2
1
57
De La Fuente,
(2003).L.,Effects
De LaPsychology,
ofFuente,
pretrialE.
juror
(Case
I.,
Crime,
&
bias,
Garcia,
2)and
strength
Law,
J.Juror
of
9, Bias
evidence
197-209.
Scale
and deliberation process on juror decisions: New
yes
validity evidence of the
2 Juror Bias Scale scores.
1
153
Gallun, E.
(1983).
Z., & Kassin,
The effect
Unpublished
S.ofM.the insanity
(Study
Manuscript.
defense
2)
Juror
and its
Bias
consequences
Scale
on jury verdicts.
yes
2
1
120
Kassin, S.
(1983).
M., &The
Wrightsman,
construction
Journal of
L. Research
S.
and
(Study
validation
3)
in Personality,
ofJuror
a juror
Bias
bias
17,
Scale
scale.
423-442.
yes
2
1
53
Tang, C. (2003).
M., & Nunez,
EffectsAmerican
N.
of defendants
Journal
ageofand
Criminal
juror
Juror
bias
Justice,
Bias
on judgments
Scale
28, 37-52.of culpability: What happens when a juvenile
yesis tried as an adult.2
1
153
Thompson,
(2004).
C. M.,
Graphic
& Dennison,
Psychiatry,
evidence
S. ofPsychology
violence: The
and
Juror
impact
Law,
Bias
11,
of juror
Scale
323-337.
decision making, the influence of judicial instructions
yes and the effect of2juror biases.
1
128
Warling, (2003).
D., & Peterson-Badali,
The verdict
Behavioral
on jury
M.Sciences
trials for juveniles:
and the
Juror
Law,
the
Bias
effects
21,Scale
63-82.
of defendant's age on trial outcomes.
yes
2
1
311
Solana, E.
(1998).
D., Garcia,
Some J.,
individual
Psychology,
& Tamayo,
differences
Crime,
I. M. and
in perception
Law,
Juror
4, Bias
361-373.
of the
Scale
evidence
- Spanish
and version
the verdict choice.
yes, don’t need spanish
2 version since I have1 english
77
Kassin, S.
(1991).
M., &Blood
Garfield,
and
Journal
D.
guts:
A.ofGeneral
Applied and
Social
trial-specific
Psychology,
Juror Bias
effects
Scale
21, 1459-1472.
of videotaped crime scences on mock jurors. yes
2
1
48
De La Fuente,
(2003).L.,Effects
De LaPsychology,
ofFuente,
pretrialE.
juror
(Case
I.,
Crime,
&
bias,
Garcia,
1)and
strength
Law,
J.Juror
of
9, Bias
evidence
197-209.
Scale
and deliberation process on juror decisions: New
yes
validity evidence of the
2 Juror Bias Scale scores.
1
153
Chapdelaine,
(1997).
A.,Beliefs
& Griffin,
Journal
of guilt
S. F.of
and
Social
recommended
Issues, 53,
Juror
sentence
477-485.
Bias as
Scale
a function
- Probability
of jurorofbias
Commission
in the O. J. Simpson trial. yes
2
1
125
Cutler, B.(1992).
L., Moran,
Jury G.,
selection
Journal
& Narby,
in
of insanity
Research
D.(Study
J. defense
2)
in Personality,
Juror
cases.
Bias26,
Scale
165-182.
- Probability of Commission
yes
2
1
61
Hunter, G.
(2004).
B. Cynicism
Dissertation
and its effects
Abstracts
on mock
International:
Juror
juror Bias
decision-making.
Section
Scale - B:
Probability
The Sciences
of Commission
and Engineering Vol 64(8-B),
see
2004,
text pp. 4114
2
1
165
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(male
mockSocial
participants)
jurors'Psychology,
verdicts
Juror Bias
in a
Scale
20,
rape
901-919.
-case.
Probability of Commission
yes
2
1
163
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(female
mockSocial
jurors'
participants)
Psychology,
verdicts
Juror Bias
in a
Scale
20,
rape
901-919.
-case.
Probability of Commission
yes
2
1
175
Chapdelaine,
(1997).
A.,Beliefs
& Griffin,
Journal
of guilt
S. F.of
and
Social
recommended
Issues, 53,
Juror
sentence
477-485.
Bias as
Scale
a function
- Reasonable
of juror Doubt
bias insubscale
the O. J. Simpson trial. yes
2
1
125
Hunter, G.
(2004).
B. Cynicism
Dissertation
and its effects
Abstracts
on mock
International:
Juror
juror Bias
decision-making.
Section
Scale - B:
Reasonable
The Sciences
Doubt
and
subscale
Engineering Vol 64(8-B),
see
2004,
text pp. 4113
2
1
165
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(male
mockSocial
participants)
jurors'Psychology,
verdicts
Juror Bias
in a
Scale
20,
rape
901-919.
-case.
Reasonable Doubt subscale
yes
2
1
163
Cutler, B.(1992).
L., Moran,
Jury G.,
selection
Journal
& Narby,
in
of insanity
Research
D.(Study
J. defense
1)
in Personality,
Juror
cases.
Bias26,
Scale
165-182.
- Reasonable Doubt subscale
yes
2
1
150
Cutler, B.(1992).
L., Moran,
Jury G.,
selection
Journal
& Narby,
in
of insanity
Research
D.(Study
J. defense
2)
in Personality,
Juror
cases.
Bias26,
Scale
165-182.
- Reasonable Doubt subscale
yes
2
1
61
Weir, J. A.,
(1990).
& Wrightsman,
The determinants
Journal
L. S.
of Applied
of(female
mockSocial
jurors'
participants)
Psychology,
verdicts
Juror Bias
in a
Scale
20,
rape
901-919.
-case.
Reasonable Doubt subscale
yes
2
1
175
Lecci, L.,(2002).
& Myers,
Examining
B. Law the
andconstruct
Human Behavior,
validity ofJuror
26,
the455-463.
original
Bias Scale
and -revised
Revised
JBS:
- PC1
A cross-validation of sample andyes
method.
2
1
617
Myers, B.,
(1998).
& Lecci,
Revising
L. Law
theand
factor
Human
structure
Behavior,
of theJuror
22,
juror
239-256.
Bias
bias Scale
scale:- ARevised
method- PC1
for the empirical validation of theoretical
yes constructs.
2
1
406