McCullough Gary W
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, 4901 E. University, Odessa, TX 79762, USA.
Psychol Rep. 2007 Dec;101(3 Pt 1):723-30. doi: 10.2466/pr0.101.3.723-730.
The Story Model of Juror Decision Making proposes that jurors develop a story of the case, match the story to verdict templates, and then select the best match between the story and the verdict. The present research investigated the effect different text structures in opening statements and closing arguments had on jurors' recognition for trial information and decision-making. It was hypothesized: (1) narrative opening statements would enhance story construction and (2) comparison-expository closing arguments would enhance story classification. 80 introductory psychology students read a medical malpractice mock lawsuit, rendered a verdict, were tested for recognition of trial facts, and gave an estimate of the surgeon's negligence. The defense's opening statements and closing arguments were written either in narrative or comparison-expository text format. Although weak support for the first hypothesis was found, evidence supporting the effect of comparison-expository text in closing arguments on juror decisions was stronger.
陪审员决策的故事模型提出，陪审员会构建案件的故事，将该故事与判决模板相匹配，然后在故事和判决之间选择最佳匹配。本研究调查了开场陈述和结案陈词中不同文本结构对陪审员对审判信息的识别及决策的影响。研究假设如下：（1）叙事性开场陈述会增强故事构建；（2）对比说明性结案陈词会增强故事分类。80名心理学专业入门学生阅读了一起医疗事故模拟诉讼，做出判决，接受审判事实识别测试，并对外科医生的过失进行评估。辩方的开场陈述和结案陈词采用叙事或对比说明性文本格式撰写。虽然对第一个假设的支持力度较弱，但支持对比说明性文本在结案陈词中对陪审员决策产生影响的证据更强。
