Academic
Publications
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making

Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making,10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.189,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,N

Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making   (Citations: 148)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
This research investigates the Story Model, Pennington and Hastie's (1986, 1988) explanation- based theory of decision making for juror decisions. In Experiment 1, varying the ease with which stories could be constructed affected verdict judgments and the impact of credibility evidence. Memory for evidence in all conditions was equivalent, implying that the story structure was a mediator of decisions and of the impact of credibility evidence. In Experiments 2 and 3, Ss evalu- ated the evidence in 3 ways. When Ss made a global judgment at the end of the case, their judgment processes followed the prescriptions of the Story Model, not of Bayesian or linear updating models. When Ss made item-by-item judgments after each evidence block, linear anchor and adjust models described their judgments. In conditions in which story construction strategies were more likely to be used, story completeness had greater effects on decisions.
Journal: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - PSP , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 189-206, 1992
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
    • ...This research (Pennington & Hastie, 1991, 1992) has shown that juries use narratives in three related ways to find a verdict: (a) They listen to the stories from testimony and the narratives of the opposing attorneys and expert witnesses (such as PAs); (b) they create their own narratives of the case and then they refine it during jury deliberations; finally (c), they define the narrative by determining the verdict...

    Ronald K. Bullis. Narrative Approaches in Psychological Autopsies: Suggestions for Metho...

    • ...The construction of a story serves a central purpose in the reasoning of jurors; a narrative of events serves as an explanation when people address the question of “why” in human action episodes, like those that are the concern of jury trials, that unfold causally over time and involve motives, actions, events, and states (Bennett, 1992; Graesser, Olde, & Klettke, 2002; Hastie & Pennington, 2000; Pennington & Hastie, 1992)...

    Michael Weinstock. Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors'...

    • ...Research has shown that perceivers actively attempt to make sense of the events as depicted (Kunda and Thagard 1996; Kunda and Spencer 2003; Pennington and Hastie 1992)...
    • ...While the results of the current study suggest that the victim’s lack of fit with the victim stereotype seems sufficient to result in increased victim blame (see also Krahé 1988), the cognitive story model of juror decisionmaking (Pennington and Hastie 1992) suggests that individuals may still search for a mechanism by which to account for the alleged assault...

    Barbara Masseret al. Bad Woman, Bad Victim? Disentangling the Effects of Victim Stereotypic...

    • ...Likewise, legal decision makers might be swayed by the advocate who tells the most fluent story (e.g., Pennington & Hastie, 1992) rather than the party with the most clinically compelling legal argument...

    Adam L. Alteret al. Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation

    • ...What was the target person trying to do by acting this way under these circumstances? Essentially, the perceiver is looking for a coherent narrative that explains the known facts (Pennington & Hastie, 1992)...

    Glenn D. Reeder. Mindreading: Judgments About Intentionality and Motives in Disposition...

Sort by: