Cargando…

Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that verd...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maeder, Evelyn M., Yamamoto, Susan, Ewanation, Logan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10150152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37361449
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0
_version_ 1785035308449923072
author Maeder, Evelyn M.
Yamamoto, Susan
Ewanation, Logan
author_facet Maeder, Evelyn M.
Yamamoto, Susan
Ewanation, Logan
author_sort Maeder, Evelyn M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that verdicts and ratings of trial parties would be similar for those participants viewing a videotaped trial and those reading a written transcript. However, we suspected that emotional states might be heightened for those watching a video and that those reading transcripts would perform better on quality checks regarding trial content (but worse on those involving trial party characteristics, including defendant race). METHOD: Participants (N = 139 after removing those who did not meet our threshold for data quality) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a transcript of a trial involving an alleged murder of a police officer. They completed a questionnaire probing their verdict, perceptions of trial parties, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional state, and responded to a series of quality checks. RESULTS: Participants in the videotape condition performed significantly worse on quality checks than did those in the transcript condition. There were no significant differences between modalities in terms of verdict or perceived salience of racial issues. Some other differences emerged between conditions, however, with more positive perceptions of the pathologist and police officer in the transcript condition, and more negative emotion elicited by the trial involving a White defendant in the videotape condition only. CONCLUSIONS: There were no meaningful differences between videotaped and written trial materials in terms of outcome (verdict), but the presence of some trial party rating and emotional state differences stemming from modality epitomizes the internal/ecological validity trade-off in jury research. Our quality check results indicate that written transcripts may work better for obtaining valid data online. Regardless of modality, researchers must be diligent in crafting quality checks to ensure that participants are attending to the stimulus materials, particularly as more research shifts online.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10150152
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101501522023-05-02 Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research Maeder, Evelyn M. Yamamoto, Susan Ewanation, Logan J Exp Criminol Article OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine differences between videotaped and written trial materials on verdicts, perceptions of trial parties, quality check outcomes, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional states in a trial involving a Black or White defendant. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that verdicts and ratings of trial parties would be similar for those participants viewing a videotaped trial and those reading a written transcript. However, we suspected that emotional states might be heightened for those watching a video and that those reading transcripts would perform better on quality checks regarding trial content (but worse on those involving trial party characteristics, including defendant race). METHOD: Participants (N = 139 after removing those who did not meet our threshold for data quality) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a transcript of a trial involving an alleged murder of a police officer. They completed a questionnaire probing their verdict, perceptions of trial parties, perceived salience of racial issues, and emotional state, and responded to a series of quality checks. RESULTS: Participants in the videotape condition performed significantly worse on quality checks than did those in the transcript condition. There were no significant differences between modalities in terms of verdict or perceived salience of racial issues. Some other differences emerged between conditions, however, with more positive perceptions of the pathologist and police officer in the transcript condition, and more negative emotion elicited by the trial involving a White defendant in the videotape condition only. CONCLUSIONS: There were no meaningful differences between videotaped and written trial materials in terms of outcome (verdict), but the presence of some trial party rating and emotional state differences stemming from modality epitomizes the internal/ecological validity trade-off in jury research. Our quality check results indicate that written transcripts may work better for obtaining valid data online. Regardless of modality, researchers must be diligent in crafting quality checks to ensure that participants are attending to the stimulus materials, particularly as more research shifts online. Springer Netherlands 2023-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10150152/ /pubmed/37361449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Article
Maeder, Evelyn M.
Yamamoto, Susan
Ewanation, Logan
Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title_full Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title_fullStr Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title_full_unstemmed Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title_short Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
title_sort quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10150152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37361449
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0
work_keys_str_mv AT maederevelynm qualitycheckingthenewnormaltrialmodalityinonlinejurydecisionmakingresearch
AT yamamotosusan qualitycheckingthenewnormaltrialmodalityinonlinejurydecisionmakingresearch
AT ewanationlogan qualitycheckingthenewnormaltrialmodalityinonlinejurydecisionmakingresearch