Emotions can bias even the most well-intentioned individuals, leading to unfair trials if left unchecked in jurors. Previous work by Olaguez (2021) on child sex abuse cases attempted to mitigate the biasing effects of emotions in jurors. Building on prior research, our current work examines how different influences in civil cases shape jurors’ decision making.

Jury deliberations offer a unique window into how groups reason through complex evidence. Our research examines how jurors explain and justify their verdict decisions, with attention to the challenges of reaching consensus in emotionally charged cases.

How do individuals develop attitudes and beliefs about law enforcement and how do these beliefs change over time?  In a series of studies, we will explore how beliefs are shaped in early development and how young adults navigate interactions with law enforcement. 

Across juror deliberation research, the use of civil cases is sparse compared to the use of criminal cases, leading to a disparity in the applicability of such research to the real world. Using mock jury studies with community members, we investigate how people assign responsibility and blame in everyday disputes.