Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Rendering a Verdict

In this last stage of the story model, jurors map their

accepted story onto each of the verdict categories to

determine which verdict category best matches the

accepted story. This mapping sequence is intentional on

the part of jurors and is difficult because they are map-

ping their accepted story onto unfamiliar, newly learned

concepts. However, jurors are somewhat aided in this

process by the structure of the verdict options. Typically,

verdict options consist of elements that closely mimic

the episodic structure that jurors used when creating the

story. For example, the verdict definition of first-degree

murder includes an element of identification (identify-

ing the person who committed the crime), mental state

(that person intentionally killed the victim), circum-

stances (the victim gave no provocation and the murder

was premeditated), and actions (the killing was inten-

tional and unlawful). These correspond to the elements

that make up an episode in a story.

Once the jurors have chosen which verdict cate-

gory best matches the story, jurors apply the judge’s

procedural instructions to make a decision in the case.

For example, in a criminal case, if the best-fit verdict

option exceeds the jurors’ threshold for reasonable

doubt on each of the elements of that verdict option,

then the juror is likely to choose that verdict. If not,

the juror does not choose that verdict option. If no

match of verdict option and story exceeds this thresh-

old, then the juror defaults to a verdict of not guilty. In

addition, the goodness of fit, or the jurors’ confidence

in a verdict category-story match, will affect whether

the juror is likely to choose that verdict. If the good-

ness of fit is low, the juror is less likely to be confident

in that verdict than if the goodness of fit is high.

Research Investigating

the Story Model

The initial study in the development of the story model

was designed to provide a picture of how jurors

processed evidence and established that jurors created

narrative structures to explain and account for evidence.

Further research demonstrated that the actual creation

of the narrative was a spontaneous act of the juror and

that the story is actually a mediator in the verdict deci-

sion. That is, jurors heard the evidence, created a story,

and then the story caused the jurors to choose a partic-

ular verdict. Last, the researchers also conducted a

study demonstrating that the story model was a more

complete and accurate explanation of juror decisions

compared with more traditional models of decision

making. Other researchers have also applied the story

model of juror decision making to successfully explain

jurors’ decisions in rape trials, civil cases, and sexual

harassment cases.

In sum, the story model of juror decision making is an

explanatory model of decision making that asserts that

jurors actively create a narrative (in the form of multiple

episodes) to organize trial evidence. In creating the story,

jurors use evidence presented at trial and their own

knowledge of both real-world events and the elements

that make up a story. To determine whether a story is

acceptable, jurors use the certainty principles of coverage

and coherence. Coverage and coherence, combined with

the story’s uniqueness, also contribute to the juror’s sub-

sequent confidence in a story. The second stage of the

story model is the stage in which jurors learn the verdict

options available to them, and this happens during judi-

cial instructions at the end the trial. Jurors’ preconceived

notions about certain crimes may also affect the way in

which they perceive the verdict categories. In the last

stage, jurors map their chosen stories onto the various

verdict categories and apply the standard of proof given

to them by the judge. If the match exceeds the standard

of proof, then the juror chooses that verdict. If not, the

juror defaults to a not-guilty verdict. Last, research has

generally demonstrated support for the story model of

juror decision making in a variety of cases.

Lora M. Levett

See alsoJuries and Judges’ Instructions; Jury Deliberation;

Pretrial Publicity, Impact on Juries; Sexual Harassment,

Jury Evaluation of

Further Readings

Huntley, J. E., & Costanzo, M. (2003). Sexual harassment stories:

Testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in

civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27,29–51.

Olsen-Fulero, L., & Fulero, S. M. (1997). Commonsense rape

judgments: An empathy-complexity theory of rape juror

story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3,

402–427.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the

evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision

making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

62,189–206.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for

juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.),Inside the

juror: The psychology of juror decision making

(pp. 192–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.

768 ———Story Model for Juror Decision Making

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 768