Virtually the same? A comparison between in-person and virtual mock jury deliberations

Courts have dramatically increased their use of virtual jury trials, but empirical research has yet to examine differences between in-person and virtual jury deliberations.

We tested competing hypotheses that in-person juries would be better (or worse) than virtual juries in terms of attention and engagement, deliberation, and diversity.

Community members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; mean age = 48.68 years) watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident and then deliberated either in person or virtually in 54 mock juries (N_{in person} = 24; N_virtual = 30).

In-person and virtual juries did not differ significantly across most outcomes. However, regarding attention and engagement, virtual juries reported expending greater cognitive effort (d = 0.59) than in-person juries. Regarding deliberation, in-person juries interrupted each other significantly more often than virtual juries (d = 1.93), and they discussed more topics than virtual juries (d = 0.59-1.02). Regarding diversity, virtual jurors were younger (d = 0.55), wealthier (d = 0.66), and more educated (φ = .14) than in-person jurors, although both samples were recruited in the same manner.

Despite concerns that virtual formats substantially reduce jurors' attention/engagement and change the nature of their deliberations, virtual jurors thoroughly processed relevant evidence and reportedly expended more effort in doing so. Although virtual formats may require more technologically savvy jurors (expected to correlate with a juror's age, wealth, and education), this study provides little evidence that virtual jury participation fundamentally alters core aspects of jury deliberation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).