IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v3y2014i3p618-635d40035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Students vs . Jurors: Responding to Enhanced Video Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Meredith Rossner

    (Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK)

  • David Tait

    (Justice Research Group, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1979, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia)

  • Jane Goodman-Delahunty

    (School of Psychology and Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 168, Manly, NSW 1655, Australia)

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of visual media technologies used in remote witness testimony, examining whether it is suitable to use students as mock jurors when measuring the impact of new technologies. A 2 × 2 mixed factorial design explored how student status impacted ratings of the quality of the technology and remote witness facilities. A sample of 79 students and non-empanelled jurors from the Victorian Metropolitan County Court viewed direct questioning of four lay witnesses who testified from a remote location via standard or enhanced video technology. Students differed significantly from jurors in their attitudes towards media and technology. In responding to technology enhancements, students were similar in rating changes in the quality of the technology, but differed significantly in how they rated changes to the design of remote witness facilities. Students were thus a suitable sample to measure the effect of technological change in court on perceptions of technology, but not on perceptions of design. We conclude by stressing such technology enhancements can improve the quality of experience for all jurors.

Suggested Citation

  • Meredith Rossner & David Tait & Jane Goodman-Delahunty, 2014. "Students vs . Jurors: Responding to Enhanced Video Technology," Laws, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:618-635:d:40035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/3/618/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/3/618/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    3. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    4. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    6. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    7. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    8. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    9. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Holli-Anne Passmore & Ying Yang & Sarena Sabine, 2022. "An Extended Replication Study of the Well-Being Intervention, the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI)," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2663-2683, August.
    13. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    14. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    15. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    16. Nadav Klein & Igor Grossmann & Ayse K. Uskul & Alexandra A. Kraus & Nicholas Epley, 2015. "It pays to be nice, but not really nice: Asymmetric reputations from prosociality across 7 countries," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 355-364, July.
    17. Epton, Tracy & Ghio, Daniela & Ballard, Lisa M. & Allen, Sarah F. & Kassianos, Angelos P. & Hewitt, Rachael & Swainston, Katherine & Fynn, Wendy Irene & Rowland, Vickie & Westbrook, Juliette & Jenkins, 2022. "Interventions to promote physical distancing behaviour during infectious disease pandemics or epidemics: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    18. Theodore T. Bartholomew, 2016. "Mental Health in Namibia," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 28(1), pages 101-125, March.
    19. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    20. Peter Martinsson & Emil Persson, 2019. "Public Goods and Minimum Provision Levels: Does the Institutional Formation Affect Cooperation?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(4), pages 1473-1499, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:618-635:d:40035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.