The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review.
Abstract
The effect of pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror verdicts was examined through a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. In support of the hypothesis, subjects exposed to negative PTP were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less or no negative PTP. Greater effect sizes were produced in studies which included a pretrial verdict assessment, use of the potential juror pool as subjects, multiple points of negative information included in the PTP, real PTP, crimes of murder, sexual abuse, or drugs, and greater length of time between PTP exposure and judgment. The effect was attenuated with student subjects, use of general rather than specific PTP information, certain types of PTP content, a post-trial predeliberation verdict, and specific types of crimes. Implications of these results are discussed, along with possible mechanisms that underlie the PTP effect.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0020071 · Cited by 4,540
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609 · Cited by 2,290
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189 · Cited by 761
Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242 · Cited by 659
Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521 · Cited by 573
Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 446
Decker, S. H. (1979) · Journal of Drug Issues · doi:10.1177/002204267900900315 · Cited by 409
A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect.
Steblay, N. M. (1992) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf02352267 · Cited by 347
Self-citation
Cited by
Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622 · Cited by 553
Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., Fulero, S. M., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1012888715007 · Cited by 328
“The goal of this work is to use the technique of meta-analysis (see Steblay, 1992; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999 ) to examine the sequential-superiority effect and the variables that might moderate it, across the extant studies.”
MethodSelf-citationIssues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials
Grant, A., Altman, D. G., Babiker, A. G., Campbell, M., Clemens, F., Darbyshire, J. H., Elbourne, D. R., McLeer, S., Parmar, M., Pocock, S., et al. (2005) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta9070 · Cited by 274
Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis.
Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000223 · Cited by 227
Jury decision making: the state of the science
Devine, D. J. (2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-4115 · Cited by 213
Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility
Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2000) · Thammasat University Digital Collections · Cited by 208
Steblay, N. K., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7 · Cited by 191
“Meta-analysis has been used quite successfully to facilitate understanding of other issues of importance in the legal psychology arena (Steblay, 1992, 1997; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999; Steblay & Bothwell, 1994; Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001).”
MethodResultSelf-citationOeberst, A., & Imhoff, R. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221148147 · Cited by 200
“…decision-making, more generally), in which an unbiased judgment is the ultimate goal that is rarely reached (Devine et al., 2001; Hagan & Parker, 1985; Mustard, 2001; Pruitt & Wilson, 1983; Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001; Steblay et al., 1999; for overviews, see Faigman et al., 2012; Kang & Lane, 2010).”
BackgroundLieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.677 · Cited by 109
“It should be noted that in their meta-analysis Steblay et al. (1999) found that general pretrial”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUnderstanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock Jurors.
Hope, L., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.10.2.111 · Cited by 101
“Although a small number of studies report null effects (e.g., Bruschke & Loges, 1999; Freedman & Burke, 1996), over 35 years of research examining the effects of PTP has produced a considerable body of literature that demonstrates a prejudicial impact of PTP on juror decision making (see Linz & Penrod, 1992; Studebake…”
BackgroundJury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them
Daftary‐Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. (2009) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1348/135532509x465624 · Cited by 84
Hans, V. P. (2008) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172319 · Cited by 85
“No Hatred or Malice, Fear or Affection”: Media and Sentencing
Philippe, A., & Ouss, A. (2018) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/699210 · Cited by 64
Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2007) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11498-000 · Cited by 71
Handbook of psychology in legal contexts
Carson, D., & Bull, R. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · Cited by 72
Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J. L., Houp, S., et al. (2008) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x · Cited by 70
“The finding that pretrial publicity had a moderate positive relationship with conviction in this study involving actual juries is consistent with the Steblay et al. (1999) metaanalysis based primarily on experimental studies involving mock jurors acting as individuals.”
ResultKovera, M. B. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013829224920 · Cited by 66
“Although deliberations may alter the strength of the media effects found in the present research, researchers generally have not found differences between jurors’ pre- and postdeliberation responses (e.g., Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983; Steblay et al., 1999 ).”
BackgroundResultSpinoza’s error: Memory for truth and falsity
Nadarevic, L., & Erdfelder, E. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0251-z · Cited by 66
News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making.
Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (2003) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021622827154 · Cited by 59
“In general, the research which has examined pretrial publicity effects in criminal trials has demonstrated that prejudicial publicity tends to negatively influence perceptions of the defendant as well as pretrial and posttrial judgments of guilt ( Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999; Studebaker & Penro…”
BackgroundBehind closed doors: the effect of pretrial publicity on jury deliberations
Ruva, C. L., & LeVasseur, M. A. (2011) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2010.502120 · Cited by 58
“Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994 ; Ruva, McEvoy, & Bryant, 2007 ; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999 ).”
Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective
Sommers, S. R., & Douglass, A. B. (2006) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1348/135532506x114301 · Cited by 54
Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect.
Abshire, J. S., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1025481905861 · Cited by 54
“Although some research suggests that group deliberation minimizes the effect of extralegal factors (e.g., Ellsworth, 1989), other studies have found comparable extralegal effects, both pre- and postdeliberation, for variables such as a plaintiff’s injury severity (Greene, Johns, & Bowman, 1999) and negative pretrial p…”
Ruva, C. L., Guenther, C. C., & Yarbrough, A. (2011) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854811400823 · Cited by 54
“The courts have attempted to remedy the problem of juror bias associated with PTP exposure in several ways (e.g., judicial instructions, careful voir dire, continuance, change of venue; Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundRuva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2014) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000117 · Cited by 55
Timmerman, L. M., Allen, M. R., Jorgensen, J., Herrett-Skjellum, J., Kramer, M. R., & Ryan, D. J. (2008) · Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01463370802240932 · Cited by 41
Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.
Vidmar, N. J. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013881208990 · Cited by 41
“Despite the small numbers, Steblay et al. (1999) , using the technique of meta-analysis, concluded that larger effects of pretrial publicity were obtained when (1) the respondents were potential jurors, (2) when there were multiple points of publicity, (3) when real, as opposed to artificial, pretrial publicity was in…”
MethodResultInfluentialAssessing pretrial publicity effects: Integrating content analytic results.
Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Pathak, M. K., et al. (2000) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1005536204923 · Cited by 39
“As stated earlier, one factor likely to affect the degree of influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity on people’s attitudes about a publicized case is the amount of information presented about the case ( Steblay et al., 1999 ).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe CSI Effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury*,†
Holmgren, J. A., & Fordham, J. (2010) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01621.x · Cited by 39
“While it has been argued that pretrial publicity can have a prejudicial impact on juror verdicts in both criminal (3,4) and civil cases (5), little scientific research exists specifically on the CSI effect and the Australian and Canadian juror.”
BackgroundBaguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. (2017) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000234 · Cited by 38
Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Penrod, S., et al. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013877108082 · Cited by 34
“A recent meta-analysis of research that examined 44 tests of the relationship between PTP and individual subjects’ judgments about guilt or innocence of a defendant ( Steblay et al., 1999 ) validates these concerns as they pertain to PTP research conditions.”
BackgroundInfluentialLidén, M., Gräns, M., & Juslin, P. (2018) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2018.1511790 · Cited by 38
Competing opinions and stubborness: Connecting models to data
Burghardt, K., Rand, W. M., & Girvan, M. (2016) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.93.032305 · Cited by 28
Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street?
Bornstein, B. H., Whisenhunt, B. L., Nemeth, R. J., et al. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013825124011 · Cited by 29
“Steblay et al. (1999) found that longer intervals between PTP and trial actually produce larger PTP effects than the very short intervals used in the present study.”
InfluentialDaftary‐Kapur, T., Penrod, S., O’Connor, M., & Wallace, B. (2014) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000081 · Cited by 29
Bakhshay, S., & Haney, C. W. (2018) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/law0000174 · Cited by 27
“, 2014; Moran & Cutler, 1991; Ruva, McEvoy, & Bryant, 2007; Steblay, Besirevic, Fulero, & Jimenez-Lorente, 1999; Studebaker & Penrod, 1997), including the perceived greater culpability and lessened credibility of the defendant (e.g., Moran & Cutler, 1991; Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundClow, K. A., Lant, J. M., & Cutler, B. L. (2013) · Race and Social Problems · doi:10.1007/s12552-013-9102-1 · Cited by 25
“Many researchers have investigated the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) and have come to the conclusion that individuals who are exposed to negative PTP are more likely to judge a defendant guilty than individuals exposed to little or no negative PTP (e.g., Daftary-Kapur et al. 2010; Moran and Cutler 1991; Steblay…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Role of Death Qualification in Jurors' Susceptibility to Pretrial Publicity1
Butler, B. M. (2007) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00150.x · Cited by 26
“…from law-enforcement organizations, it is hardly surprising that numerous studies have found almost all pretrial publicity to be pro-prosecution, pro-conviction, and pro-death (Besirevic & Fulero, 1999; Dexter, Cutler, & Moran, 1992; Haney, 2005; Moran & Cutler, 1991; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994).”
BackgroundMaking law modern: Toward a contextual model of justice.
Haney, C. W. (2002) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/1076-8971.8.1.3 · Cited by 28
“It will be your duty…:” The Psychology of Criminal Jury Instructions
Alvarez, M. J., Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016) · Advances in psychology and law · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_4 · Cited by 25
Mohler, M. E., Campbell, C. M., Henderson, K. S., & Renauer, B. (2021) · Policing & Society · doi:10.1080/10439463.2021.1878169 · Cited by 28
“…example, research on pre-trial publicity (i.e. media information shared about a defendant, case, and/or evidence), has found that negative publicity is more influential on jurors’ decisions, and that the greater the exposure the stronger the effect (Studebaker and Penrod 1997, Steblay et al. 1999).”
BackgroundCommunication Law and Policy: The State of Research and Theory
Reinard, J. C., & Ortiz, S. M. (2005) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02687.x · Cited by 25
Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2017) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000256 · Cited by 30
“Ample research suggests that PTP can bias a juror through a multitude of mechanisms (Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundThe Impact of Emotions on Juror Judgments and Decision-Making
Nunez, N. L., Estrada-Reynolds, V. C., Schweitzer, K. A., & Myers, B. P. (2016) · Advances in psychology and law · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_3 · Cited by 27
Gallor, S. M. (2017) · Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research · doi:10.24839/2325-7342.jn22.4.254 · Cited by 23
Media Influence on Courts: Evidence from Civil Case Adjudication
Lim, C. (2015) · American Law and Economics Review · doi:10.1093/aler/ahv005 · Cited by 20
“In contrast, if 3A meta-analysis by Steblay et al. (1999) shows that jurors exposed to negative pretrial publicity of criminal cases are more likely to judge the defendant guilty.”
BackgroundResultEvidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts.
Devine, D. J., Krouse, P. C., Cavanaugh, C. M., & Basora, C. (2016) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000209 · Cited by 24
Guilty and Threatening: Visual Bias in Television News Crime Stories
Barnett, B. (2003) · Journalism & Communication Monographs · doi:10.1177/152263790300500301 · Cited by 20
HONESS, T. M., Charman, E. A., & Levi, M. M. (2003) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01955.x · Cited by 19
A Comparison of Juror Decision Making in Race-Based and Sexual Orientation–Based Hate Crime Cases
Gamblin, B. W., Kehn, A., Vanderzanden, K., Ruthig, J. C., Jones, K. M., & Long, B. L. (2018) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260518774305 · Cited by 18
Pretrial publicity and juror age affect mock-juror decision making.
Ruva, C. L., & Hudak, E. M. (2013) · Psychology, Crime & Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2011.616509 · Cited by 15
“Research examining the effects of negative (pro-prosecution) pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror bias has found that jurors exposed to negative PTP (N-PTP) are more likely to find the defendant guilty than their non-exposed counterparts (Kerr, Niedermeier, & Kaplan, 1999 ; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994 ; Ruva, McEvoy, &…”
BackgroundKitagawa, R., & Bell, S. R. (2022) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/00220027211066616 · Cited by 15
“As numerous psychological studies show, publicity around the initiation of a trial is especially important for its oversized effect on public opinion (Bakhshay and Haney 2018; Steblay et al. 1999).”
BackgroundFamiliarity impacts person perception
Garcia‐Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2006) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.387 · Cited by 17
Generic Prejudice in the Law: Sexual Assault and Homicide
Wiener, R. L., Arnot, L., Winter, R. J., et al. (2006) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2802_4 · Cited by 15
“However, it is clear that attempts to study the problem primarily as the result of pretrial publicity (Steblay et al., 1999) may miss some of the more interesting and subtle expressions of generic prejudice.”
BackgroundBeyond pretrial publicity: Legal and ethical issues associated with change of venue surveys.
Posey, A. J., & Dahl, L. M. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013833325829 · Cited by 15
“For example, there is a growing body of research assessing the effects of the medium through which jurors are exposed to information about the case (Ogloff & Vidmar, 1994; Steblay et al., 1999; Wilson & Bornstein, 1998).”
BackgroundBelyea, L., & Blais, J. (2021) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2021.2018440 · Cited by 24
“Exposure of PTP through traditional news stories has shown robust effects on juror decisions (Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundInfluentialRuva, C. L. (2018) · Advances in psychology and law · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75859-6_1 · Cited by 12
Estrada-Reynolds, V. C., Gray, J. M., & Nunez, N. L. (2015) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3155 · Cited by 16
Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (2004) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02693.x · Cited by 11
Cohen, A., Neeman, Z., & Auferoth, F. (2021) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01141 · Cited by 9
“Experimental evi-5 dence and surveys also show that pretrial publicity affects jurors (Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundWalters, J., Nguyen, L., Liu, Y., Ijurco, S. M., Evans, S., Chacos, N., Duran, M., & Smith, C. (2025) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102491 · Cited by 14
Race, Culpability, and Defendant Plea-Bargaining Decisions: An Experimental Simulation
Quickel, E. J. W., & Zimmerman, D. M. (2019) · Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/08839514.2018.1517294 · Cited by 9
Effects of the “intimate conviction” instruction on the processing of judicial information
Esnard, C., Dumas, R., & Bordel, S. (2013) · European Review of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.erap.2012.12.002 · Cited by 8
Defendant Remorse and Publicity in Capital Trials
Tallon, J. A., Daftary‐Kapur, T., & Penrod, S. (2015) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854815602500 · Cited by 8
“In addition, the present study built on the methodological recommendations from the Steblay et al. (1999) meta-analysis by making use of a sample of community members and introducing a delay between PTP exposure and the sentencing trial simulation.”
BackgroundMethodPretrial Publicity and the Jury: Research and Methods
Spano, L. M., Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_11 · Cited by 8
“Consistent with their hypothesis, Steblay et al. (1999) found that participants who had been exposed to biasing accounts of PTP were significantly more likely to prejudge the defendant as guilty when compared to those not exposed to this type of information (average r = 0.16, although the effect size increases to 0.39…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDumas, R., Lepastourel, N., & Testé, B. (2013) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2013.854790 · Cited by 7
“To the best of our knowledge, it is the first PTP study to combine content analysis and a collection of judgment measures for the same corpus.”
BackgroundInfluentialGeneral Pretrial Publicity in Sexual Assault Trials
Woody, W. D., & Viney, W. (2007) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.101.2.527-530 · Cited by 7
Trial consultation: A new direction in applied psychology.
Myers, B., & Arena, M. P. (2001) · Professional Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/0735-7028.32.4.386 · Cited by 7
Double jeopardy: the effects of retrial knowledge on juror decisions
Munro, J., Motson, F., Turner, J., Frumkin, L. A., & Curley, L. J. (2024) · Journal of Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1108/jcp-03-2024-0021 · Cited by 6
Timing and Type of Pretrial Publicity Affect Mock-Jurors’ Decisions and Predecisional Distortion
Ruva, C. L., Mayes, J. L., Dickman, M. C., & McEvoy, C. L. (2012) · International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120204.06 · Cited by 6
“It has been well established that exposure to pretrial publicity (PTP) b iases jurors’ and juries’ decisions[1].”
BackgroundPérez, F. S., & Ordaz, L. V. (2021) · Communication & Society · doi:10.15581/003.34.3.15-30 · Cited by 6
Capital Pretrial Publicity as a Symbolic Public Execution: A Case Report
Butler, B. M. (2012) · Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice · doi:10.1080/15228932.2011.588522 · Cited by 6
“Because most media outlets receive their information from law enforcement sources, it is hardly surprising that numerous studies have found almost all capital pretrial publicity to be pro-prosecution and, consequently, slanted in favor of both conviction and the death sentence ( Besirevic & Fulero, 1999 ; Dexter, Cutl…”
BackgroundGreene, E., Chopra, S. R., Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S., Rose, V. G., Schuller, R. A., & Studebaker, C. A. (2006) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-306-47944-3_8 · Cited by 7
Pretrial Publicity and Pedophilia: A content analysis of the Jerry Sandusky case
Klein, J. L., Tolson, D., & Longo, L. M. (2013) · Cited by 6
Staggs, S. M., & Landreville, K. D. (2016) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2016.1167917 · Cited by 6
“PTP have been shown to negatively affect initial judgments of guilt (Kramer, Kerr, & Carroll, 1990; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994), and those initial judgments can often predict the final verdicts (Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002035 · Cited by 9
The Influence of Naive and Media-Informed Beliefs on Juror Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence
Lawson, V. Z. (2014) · CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) · Cited by 5
Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental EvidencePreprint
Engel, C. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4199122 · Cited by 9
He did it! Or did I just see him on Twitter? Social media influence on eyewitness identification
Kleider‐Offutt, H. M., Stevens, B. B., & Capodanno, M. (2021) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2021.1953080 · Cited by 5
Taylor, J., & Tarrant, G. (2019) · International Journal of Cyber Research and Education · doi:10.4018/ijcre.2019070105 · Cited by 7
“These findings are consistent with the findings of previous literature exploring the effects of pre-trial publicity on juror decision making (Fein et al, 1997; Jacquin et al, 2007; Ruva & LeVassear, 2012; Steblay et al, 1999).”
ResultTrial by Tabloid: Can Implicit Bias Education Reduce Pretrial Publicity Bias?
Jones, A. M., Wong, K. A., Meyers, C., & Ruva, C. L. (2021) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/00938548211026956 · Cited by 5
“Exposure to PTP can bias a variety of legal decisions, which threatens a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers (Kramer et al., 1990; Otto et al., 1994; Ruva, 2018; Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundLepastourel, N., & Testé, B. (2004) · Psychologie Française · doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2004.07.003 · Cited by 4
Spellman, B. A., & Schauer, F. F. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730018.013.0040 · Cited by 4
“Experimental research on the effects of pretrial publicity shows that mock jurors are influenced by things they have previously learned about a trial even when they are instructed to forget the information and have promised to do so (Steblay et al., 1999).”
BackgroundLegislation awareness, cyberbullying behaviours, and cyber-roles in emerging adults.
Patterson, V. C., Closson, L. M., & Patry, M. W. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · doi:10.1037/cbs0000111 · Cited by 4
Jury Impartiality in the Modern Era
Waters, N. L., & Hannaford‐Agor, P. L. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_40 · Cited by 4
Competing Opinions and Stubbornness: Connecting Models to DataPreprint
Burghardt, K., Rand, W. M., & Girvan, M. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2536235 · Cited by 4
Juries in the Digital Age: Managing Juror Online and Social Media Use During Trial
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., & Tait, D. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19063-6_3 · Cited by 3
Maoz, U., Sita, K. R., van Boxtel, J. J. A., & Mudrik, L. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00950 · Cited by 3
EFFECTS OF PSYCHOLEGAL KNOWLEDGE ON DECISION- MAKING BY MOCK JURIES
Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (2005) · Cited by 3
The influence of pretrial exposure to community outrage and victim hardship on guilt judgments
Zimmerman, D. M., Rodriguez, D. N., Bergold, A. N., & Penrod, S. (2015) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2015.1120870 · Cited by 4
“…verdict (Irvin v. Dowd, 1961; Skilling v. United States, 2010), facts about the defendant (DeLuca, 1979; Hvistendahl, 1979; Otto et al., 1994; Steblay et al., 1999; Sue et al., 1974), emotional content (Kramer et al., 1990), and previous exposure to similar kinds of cases (Kovera, 2002;…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe influence of heterogeneous exposure and pre-deliberation queries on pretrial publicity effects
Bruschke, J. C., Gonis, A., Hill, S. A., et al. (2016) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1182639 · Cited by 3
Twitter en los juicios: una revolución en la información periodística de tribunales
Universidad de Navarra, E., & Azurmendi, A. (2014) · Correspondencias & Análisis · doi:10.24265/cian.2014.n4.02 · Cited by 3
The effects of media slant on public perception of an organization in crisis
Holbrook, T. J., & Kisamore, J. L. (2018) · Social Influence · doi:10.1080/15534510.2018.1442741 · Cited by 3
Differential or deferential to media? The effect of prejudicial publicity on judge or jury
McEwen, R., Eldridge, J., & Caruso, D. (2018) · The International Journal of Evidence & Proof · doi:10.1177/1365712718765548 · Cited by 3
“The researchers concluded that ‘the data support the hypothesis that negative pre-trial publicity significantly affects jurors’ decisions about the culpability of the defendant’ (Steblay et al., 1999: 229).”
BackgroundLa prise de décision en jury : apports de la psychologie légale
Przygodzki‐Lionet, N. (2012) · Les Cahiers de la Justice · doi:10.3917/cdlj.1201.0045 · Cited by 3
Empirical and legal perspectives on the impact of pretrial publicity: Effects and remedies.
Fulero, S. M. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1013848407173 · Cited by 3
Self-citationDebiasing the Courtroom: Using Behavioral Insights to Avoid and Mitigate Cognitive Biases
Yokum, D. V. (2014) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 3
Engel, C. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192898579.013.13 · Cited by 2
Boytos, A. S., & Pettijohn, T. F. (2017) · Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research · doi:10.24839/2325-7342.jn22.4.286 · Cited by 2
Smith, O. K. H., & Nunez, N. L. (2024) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.4219 · Cited by 2
Goldschmied, N. P., Ancona, A., & Yap, A. E. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2700 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B.
- Affiliations
- Augsburg University (US)
- Sinclair Community College (US)
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 219-235
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- OpenAlex
- W2132215549
- Semantic Scholar
- 57c2056cc32afeb35cc2478198012435aded1ab3
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 96.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- pretrial publicity, jury decision-making, guilty verdicts, murder trial
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
