质量检查新常态:在线陪审团决策研究中的审判模式。

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Experimental Criminology Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0
Evelyn M Maeder, Susan Yamamoto, Logan Ewanation
{"title":"质量检查新常态:在线陪审团决策研究中的审判模式。","authors":"Evelyn M Maeder,&nbsp;Susan Yamamoto,&nbsp;Logan Ewanation","doi":"10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10150152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality-checking the new normal: trial modality in online jury decision-making research.\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn M Maeder,&nbsp;Susan Yamamoto,&nbsp;Logan Ewanation\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10150152/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09570-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在涉及黑人或白人被告的审判中,我们试图研究录像和书面审判材料在判决、审判各方的看法、质量检查结果、种族问题的显著性和情绪状态方面的差异。假设:我们预测,对于观看庭审录像的参与者和阅读书面记录的参与者,审判各方的判决和评分将相似。然而,我们怀疑,观看视频的人的情绪状态可能会加剧,而阅读笔录的人在对审判内容进行质量检查时表现会更好(但在涉及审判方特征(包括被告种族)的情况下表现会更差)。方法:参与者(N = 139在删除了那些不符合我们数据质量阈值的人之后),他们被随机分配观看一段视频或阅读一份涉及涉嫌谋杀警察的审判记录。他们完成了一份调查问卷,调查他们的判决、对审判各方的看法、种族问题的显著性和情绪状态,并对一系列质量检查做出了回应。结果:录像带条件下的参与者在质量检查方面的表现明显不如成绩单条件下的。在种族问题的裁决或感知显著性方面,模式之间没有显著差异。然而,两种情况之间出现了其他一些差异,在笔录条件下对病理学家和警官的看法更积极,而在仅涉及录像带条件下的白人被告的审判中引发的情绪更消极。结论:在结果(判决)方面,录像和书面审判材料之间没有显著差异,但一些审判方评分和情绪状态差异的存在源于模态,这集中体现了陪审团研究中的内部/生态有效性权衡。我们的质量检查结果表明,书面记录可能更适合在线获取有效数据。无论采用何种方式,研究人员都必须认真进行质量检查,以确保参与者关注刺激材料,尤其是随着更多研究转移到网上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
期刊最新文献
Researchers’ interpretations of evidence about the association between violent attitudes and offending from different research designs Eyes on phishing emails: an eye-tracking study Higher expectations: a systematic review of reporting the science of propensity score modeling in criminal justice studies Unpacking job satisfaction among law enforcement through self-determination theory: a meta-analytic approach Examining the use of drug screening technologies in night-time entertainment districts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1