PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jennifer K Robbennolt

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer K Robbennolt.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making.

The news media have the potential to act as a powerful influence on the civil litigation system, influencing decision making in particular cases and on the system more generally as media reports influence the decision making of various participants in the system. This paper reviews the research that has examined the relationship between news media reporting and civil litigation and proposes a framework that integrates this work and provides guidance for future research efforts. Specifically, we discuss the nature of media reporting on civil litigation, perceptions of the civil litigation system held by the public and legal actors, and the potential influence of news reporting about civil litigation on the decision making of jurors, judges, civil litigants, and policymakers. Overall, the research suggests that news reporting of civil litigation presents a systematically distorted picture of civil litigation and that this reporting can influence perceptions and outcomes of civil litigation in various ways. However, there are many gaps in the existing research that need to be filled. The proposed organizational scheme helps to identify ways that future research can provide links between the findings of existing research and to identify ways in which this research can be extended to new areas.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed2002

Fractional factorial designs for legal psychology.

Researchers considering novel or exploratory psycholegal research are often able to easily generate a sizable list of independent variables (IVs) that might influence a measure of interest. Where the research question is novel and the literature is not developed, however, choosing from among a long list of potential variables those worthy of empirical investigation often presents a formidable task. Many researchers may feel compelled by legal psychology's heavy reliance on full-factorial designs to narrow the IVs under investigation to two or three in order to avoid an expensive and unwieldy design involving numerous high-order interactions. This article suggests that fractional factorial designs provide a reasonable alternative to full-factorial designs in such circumstances because they allow the psycholegal researcher to examine the main effects of a large number of factors while disregarding high-order interactions. An introduction to the logic of fractional factorial designs is provided and several examples from the social sciences are presented.

Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic↗
PubMed2002

Studying pretrial publicity effects: new methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity.

Although research examining the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) on individuals' appraisals of a defendant and verdict decision making generally has been found to be internally valid, the external validity has been questioned by some social scientists as well as lawyers and judges. It is often proposed that the verisimilitude (or ecological validity) ofthe research should be increased in the service of increasing external validity; however, increasing verisimilitude can be costly in terms of both time and money. It is proposed that the Internet is a viable means of conducting PTP research that allows high verisimilitude without high costs. This is demonstrated with a study in which we used the Internet to examine PTP effects in an actual trial as it was taking place. Successful use of the Internet to conduct experimental research in other areas of psychology and law is discussed, as well as the importance of future research examining whether independent variables interact with methods in ways that undermine the generalizability of research findings.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Punitive damage decision making: the decisions of citizens and trial court judges.

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages ofjurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.

Adult↗