2017 Poster Presentations 

Thank you for attending the 2017 ASTC Conference in Rosemont, Illinois.  We are providing the 2017 ASTC Poster Presentations for you to view post-conference. 

An Exploration of Unpacking Effects in Jury Decision Making 
Nick Polavin, PhD Student, Ohio State University | School of Communication 
Study focuses on the instructions that jurors use in making decisions in civil lawsuits, and examines how itemizing non-economic damages in different ways influences awards in civil lawsuits. Based on the unpacking effect and support theory in judgment and decision making literature, they find that itemizing non-economic damages in one particular method can significantly increase awards while other forms of itemizing damages have no effect. There is likely a balance between unpacking non-economic damages enough to help the jury understand, but not so much that their decision is hindered by typicality, working memory, and focus. View.

Can I Get a Witness? Differences in Juror Perceptions and Behavior Across Source Types 
Clint Townson, Michigan State University 
Juror perceptions of an on-the-stand witness’s credibility operate largely through heuristic cues laid out by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This model would predict that in contexts where individuals are unmotivated and/or unable to process information, they will rely on peripheral cues to make judgements about an argument. This experimental setup seeks to activate this cognitive process in the context of a criminal trial. The effects may validate the ELM as a mechanism with which to study juror processing and serve to identify the differences in credibility perceptions based solely on witness type. View.

Effect of Storyboard Visuals on Empathy and Value in Medical Malpractice Cases 
Amanda J. Panagakis, PhD Student, Grand Canyon University 
A quantitative experimental study to determine if storyboard visuals impact potential jurors in medical malpractice cases emotionally and in increasing the monetary award to the injured party. Is there a significant effect between study groups (using storyboard visuals, not using storyboard visuals) in eliciting an emotional connection? Is there a significant effect between study groups in determining the value in a client’s case? Is there a significant effect of correlation between the emotional response of a juror to an injured client’s case and the monetary damages awarded by the juror? View.

Guilty, Not Guilty, or Something in Between: An Analysis of the Impact of a Third Verdict Option and Gruesome Photographs on Jury Decision-Making 
Hannah Phalen, Arizona State University; Jessica Salerno, Arizona State University; Ashley Walters, Northwestern University; Janice Nadler, Northwestern University; and Susan Bandes, DePaul University 
Research that examines the effect of introducing a “not proven” verdict as a potential outlet for the moral outrage and resulting need to blame that is experienced by jurors in cases involving gruesome photographs as an alternative to voting guilty. This research contributes to the scientific literature by suggesting an interesting pattern in jury decision-making: when an emotional jury is presented with alternatives to a guilty verdict, they tend to justify their preferred guilty verdict by changing their evaluation of the evidence rather than changing their verdict to fit with the evidence. View.

In Search of the Sweet Spot: Jurors’ Consideration of Expert Testimony in Sentencing Decisions 
Jessica A. Boyle, PhD; Stanley L. Brodsky, PhD, The University of Alabama 
Study explored how jurors utilize biopsychosocial mitigating factors during the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Sentencing decisions were explored as a function of expert testimony, defendant substance abuse and various mock juror characteristics. Goal of the present study was to better understand the role of mental health experts in capital case sentencing and the risk that such testimony may backfire and underscore unfavorable qualities of the defendant. Results suggested there may be a “sweet spot” when expert testimony is most influential, especially for jurors more closely matching a typical college student profile. View.

Legal Authoritarianism and Need for Cognition Questions as Predictors of Guilty and Death Penalty Biases in Jurors: Sneaky Ways to Detect Bias in Voir Dire and Jury Surveys 
Bre Olson; Charlotte Sackett; Elayna Seago, Centre College 
Study of the relationship of legal authoritarianism and need for cognition to guilty bias and belief that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment in an ongoing, highly publicized, local triple murder case. Specifically, we looked for correlations between responses to individual items from the Revised Legal Authoritarianism Questionnaire and Need for Cognition Scale and guilty and death penalty biases. If certain items from each scale were predictive of juror biases, trial consultants and attorneys could potentially use that knowledge to construct jury survey and voir dire questions that indirectly reveal bias. View.

Opposing Expert Witnesses and Neuroscientific Evidence 
Riquel J. Hafdahl, MS; N. J. Schweitzer, PhD, Arizona State University 
Due to the rise in the use of neuroimagery in court cases, as well as the conflicting evidence in the literature of whether or not a neuroimage bias exists, the present studies aimed to further explore and clarify if and when a neuroimage bias emerges in situations of relative judgments. Specifically, the studies explored if a neuroimaging bias could be found among mock jurors in both criminal and civil cases, and if such bias is dependent on the context in which the neuroscientific evidence is presented (i.e. from a single expert witness versus an opposing expert witness). View.

Voir Dire Juror Archetype 
Gwendolyn Barnhart, PhD, PsyD; Jude Bergkamp, PsyD, Antioch University 
Proposes a new model to be used by lawyers during voir dire. This model aids lawyers in determining various personality types of potential jurors to ascertain whether potential jurors are best suited for their case as juror bias can indeed influence the outcome of a case that has undergone trial. This model utilizes the Five Factor Analysis as the basic theoretical framework, like the Myers-Briggs, Archetype model. This model is more simplistic in nature as to assist lawyers during Voir Dire the flexibility to quickly assign archetypes to potential jurors. View.

2017 Conference Session Presentations

An Exploration of Unpacking Effects in Jury Decision Making 
Nick Polavin and Zheng Joyce View

Analyzing Small Group Research
Joann Keyton View

Tips with Dealing with the Media
Beth Karas View

Foster v. Chatman: A Missed Opportunity for Batson and the Peremptory Challenge
Nancy S. Marder View

Guilty, Not Guilty, or Something in Between: An Analysis of the Impact of a Third Verdict Option and Gruesome Photographs on Jury Decision-Making 
Hannah Phalen, Arizona State University; Jessica Salerno, Arizona State University; Ashley Walters, Northwestern University; Janice Nadler, Northwestern University; and Susan Bandes, DePaul University View

In Search of the Sweet Spot: Jurors’ Consideration of Expert Testimony in Sentencing Decisions 
Jessica A. Boyle, PhD; Stanley L. Brodsky, PhD, The University of Alabama View

Opposing Expert Witnesses and Neuroscientific Evidence 
Riquel J. Hafdahl, MS; N. J. Schweitzer, PhD, Arizona State University View

Trial Consulting 101
Riquel J. Hafdahl, MS; N. J. Schweitzer, PhD, Arizona State University View

Can I Get a Witness? Differences in Juror Perceptions and Behavior Across Source Types 
Clint Townson and Paul Brewer View

Impact of Psychology on Tort Law 
Jennifer K. Robbennolt and Valeris P. Hans View

2016 Attorney Survey: Declining Civil Jury Trials
ASTC Jury Consultant Advisory Group View

Voir Dire Juror Archetype 
Gwendolyn Barnhart, PhD, PsyD; Jude Bergkamp, PsyD, Antioch University View

2017 Conference Photos



38 photo(s) Updated on: 27 Jul 2017
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software