| Abstract: | 48 jury-eligible adults heard 1 of 4 versions of a tort trial. The design combined high and moderate levels of evidence technicality and the placement of substantive judicial instructions either before or after evidence presentation. Jurors given instructions before hearing the evidence for liability and before the evidence for compensation made clear distinctions among 4 differentially worthy plaintiffs, whereas jurors instructed after evidence presentation were not able to distinguish among the plaintiffs. Preinstructions enabled jurors to devise a causal model, as measured by both verbal representation of the evidence and recognition tests, that contained more probative evidence and less nonprobative and evaluative information than the models constructed by jurors who were postinstructed. Preinstructed jurors were better able than postinstructed jurors to correctly reject recognition items not part of the trial text and to correctly identify items from the trial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
