Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Do juries meet our expectations?

Hal R Arkes1, Barbara A Mellers

  • 1Department of Psychology and Center for HOPES, Ohio State University, 240N Lazenby Hall, 1827 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. arkes.1@osu.edu

Law and Human Behavior
|January 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reference-Point Theory: An Account of Individual Differences in Risk Preferences.

Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science·2023
Same author

Human and Algorithmic Predictions in Geopolitical Forecasting: Quantifying Uncertainty in Hard-to-Quantify Domains.

Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science·2023
Same author

Analysis of Physicians' Probability Estimates of a Medical Outcome Based on a Sequence of Events.

JAMA network open·2022
Same author

Practical consequences of flawed social psychological research on bias.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2022
Same author

Conflicting Goals Influence Physicians' Expressed Beliefs to Patients and Colleagues.

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making·2021
Same author

Author Correction: A consensus-based transparency checklist.

Nature human behaviour·2019
Same journal

Viewing police body-worn camera video of use-of-force incidents: Does repeated or slow-motion viewing matter?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Psychopathy in the context of adversity: Understanding associations of early-life adversity and psychopathic symptoms in a sample of justice-involved youth.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Race and ethnicity in the courtroom workgroup: Can diversifying the court solve racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

The justice motive: Retributive and restorative factors affect public evaluations of child protection.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

When we do not care about what happens to "criminals": How character judgments influence indifference to incidental suffering in the criminal justice system.

Law and human behavior·2026
See all related articles

Public expectations for jury accuracy in serious crimes are high, but research suggests error rates in convictions and acquittals likely far exceed tolerable levels, highlighting a significant gap between public perception and reality.

Area of Science:

  • Legal Decision-Making
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Statistical Analysis

Background:

  • Public opinion surveys reveal high expectations for jury accuracy in serious criminal cases.
  • Most individuals desire error rates (false positives and false negatives) below 10%.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the likely frequency of errors in jury decision-making.
  • To compare public expectations with empirical evidence on jury performance.

Main Methods:

  • Application of expected utility theory and Bayes' Theorem.
  • Analysis using signal detection theory.
  • Review of empirical evidence from medical decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and weather forecasting studies.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Empirical evidence suggests that error rates in jury decisions likely far exceed the "tolerable" levels expected by the public.
  • A significant discrepancy exists between public expectations of jury accuracy and the probable actual performance.

Conclusions:

  • The study does not argue against the use of juries but highlights a critical gap in expected versus actual performance.
  • Society must acknowledge and address the prevalence of errors in jury decisions regarding guilt and punishment.