Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Carretta, R. Moreland (1983)
The Direct and Indirect Effects of Inadmissible Evidence1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13
B. E. Bell, E. F. Loftus (1992)
Vivid persuasion in the courtroomJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49
V. S. Menard (1993)
Admission of computer generated visual evidence: Should there be clear standards?Software Law Journal, 6
Sidney Zagri (1967)
Free press, fair trial, 11
J. Davis, T. Kameda, C. Parks, Mark Stasson, Suzi Zimmerman (1989)
Some social mechanics of group decision making: The distribution of opinion, polling sequence, and implications for consensus.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57
M. McCloskey (1983)
Mental models
M. Sandys, C. Dillehay (1995)
First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trialsLaw and Human Behavior, 19
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1992)
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62
Jeffrey Kerwin, D. Shaffer (1994)
Mock Jurors Versus Mock Juries: The Role of Deliberations in Reactions to Inadmissible TestimonyPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20
Garold Stasser, J. Davis (1981)
Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model.Psychological Review, 88
Brad Bell, E. Loftus (1985)
Vivid persuasion in the courtroom.Journal of personality assessment, 49 6
A. Padawer-Singer, A. H. Barton (1975)
The jury system: A critical analysis
M. McCloskey, D. Kohl (1983)
Naive physics: the curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objectsJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9
M. Ellenbogen (1993)
Lights, Camera, Action: Computer-Animated Evidence Gets its Day in CourtBoston College Law Review, 34
M. McCloskey (1982)
Naive Theories of Motion.
W. Gregory, R. Cialdini, K. Carpenter (1982)
Self-Relevant Scenarios as Mediators of Likelihood Estimates and Compliance: Does Imagining Make It So?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43
S. Kassin, D. Garfield (1991)
Blood and Guts: General and Trial-Specific Effects of Videotaped Crime Scenes on Mock JurorsJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 21
M. McCloskey, Allyson Washburn, Linda Felch (1983)
Intuitive physics: the straight-down belief and its origin.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 9 4
R. Reyes, W. Thompson, G. Bower (1980)
Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39
Geoffrey Kramer, N. Kerr, J. Carroll (1990)
Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury biasLaw and Human Behavior, 14
W. M. Bulkeley (1992)
More lawyers use animation to sway juriesWall Street Journal, 18
A. Caramazza, M. McCloskey, Bert Green (1981)
Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objectsCognition, 9
N. Kerr (1981)
Social transition schemes: Charting the group's road to agreement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1986)
Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
A. Goldstein, H. Kalven, H. Zeisel, Thomas Callahan, P. Ennis (1966)
The American JuryLaw & Society Review, 1
Two experiments assessed the effects of computer-animated displays on mock jurors. In both, participants watched a trial involving a dispute over whether a man who fell to his death had accidentally slipped or jumped in a suicide. They watched a proplaintiff or prodefendant version in which the body landed 5–10 feet or 20–25 feet from the building. Within each condition, the distance testimony was presented orally or with an animated display. When the tape depicted the event in a neutral manner, judgments were more consistent with the physical evidence. But when the plaintiff and defense used the tape to depict their own partisan theories, participants increasingly made judgments that contradicted the physical evidence. Results suggest that computer-animated displays have greater impact than oral testimony. Whether that impact is to facilitate or mislead a jury, however, depends on the nature of the display.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 1, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.