additional constructs labeled social justice (e.g., “Rich
individuals are almost never convicted of their crimes.”),
racial bias (e.g., “Minority suspects are likely to be
guilty more often than not.”), and innate criminality
(e.g., “Once a criminal, always a criminal.”). Therefore,
we see that even when relying on empirical means to
generate items, constructs emerge that reflect these
authoritarian and antiauthoritarian beliefs.Legal Authoritarianism Measures
as Predictors of Individual
Verdicts in Criminal Cases
There have been multiple studies assessing the predic-
tive validity of legal authoritarianism measures. A
meta-analysis revealed that legal authoritarianism
measures demonstrate an average effect size of r=.16.
However, this correlation is somewhat reduced by the
inclusion of studies that have used rape trial scenarios.
Measures of legal authoritarianism appear to be poor
predictors of verdicts in rape trials, and although
researchers have offered some explanations as to why
this might be, it has yet to be investigated. Moreover,
many of the studies on which the analysis was
conducted used college students and/or written tran-
scripts and trial summaries. However, a general pat-
tern is that as the ecological validity (in terms of
sample used as well as presentation medium) of the
study increases, so too does the relation between
authoritarianism and verdicts.
In a recent study comparing the predictive validity
of the JBS, a shortened version of the Revised Legal
Attitudes Questionnaire (RLAQ–23), and the PJAQ,
researchers found that the JBS and RLAQ–23 com-
bined were able to account for approximately 4% of
the variance in guilt judgments. By comparison, the
PJAQ by itself accounted for approximately 7% of the
variance in guilt judgments. Consequently, when we
speak of the value of these scales as a predictor of guilt
judgments, the relation remains relatively modest.
Moreover, this relation is further weakened as the evi-
dence against the defendant becomes less equivocal. In
other words, attitudes that one carries to trial can influ-
ence final judgments, but evidence still provides the
bulk of the explanation about how we decide cases.
Of course, examining the beliefs jurors hold about
issues relevant to the legal system and their final ver-
dict in a case ignores myriad ways in which these
beliefs might indirectly affect verdicts. That is, the
attitudes jurors hold concerning trust in law enforce-
ment, for example, can influence the weight theyassign to evidence brought to trial from these sources
(e.g., police searches, confessions), or their ability
to recall certain facts, or the sources of evidence at
a later time when deliberating over the case. Researchers
are just beginning to grapple with these issues, but it
highlights the potential for the study of pretrial atti-
tudes in general, and specifically measures of legal
authoritarianism, to aid our understanding of how
jurors decide cases. Because it is well accepted that
jurors are not immune to the biasing role that these
attitudes likely play in their decisions, no model of
juror decision making can be complete without
accounting for these attitudes and the role they play in
the decision-making process. While researchers are
probably correct in warning that these measures of
legal authoritarianism can only have limited applied
impact, as judges tend to place strict limits on the use
of questionnaires submitted to members of the venire,
their greatest impact may likely lie in their potential
for researchers to better understand the decision-
making process of jurors.Bryan MyersSee alsoJury Selection; Scientific Jury Selection; Trial
Consultant Training; Trial Consulting; Voir DireFurther Readings
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction
and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in
Personality, 17,423–442.
Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability
and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes
Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17,661–667.
Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure
of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical
validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human
Behavior, 22,239–256.
Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-
analysis of the association between authoritarianism and
jurors’ perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78,34–42.
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.LEGALNEGOTIATION
Negotiation is extremely common in legal settings. In
the criminal context, most cases are resolved throughLegal Negotiation——— 447L-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 447