Korean Journal of Psychology : General
[ Article ]
The Korean Journal of Psychology: General - Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.1-32
ISSN: 1229-067X (Print)
Print publication date 25 Mar 2021
Received 22 Jan 2021 Accepted 23 Jan 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2021.3.40.1.1

배심 설시문 이해도에 대한 사전검사의 효과: 응답변화 및 응답유지 승산의 비교

한유화
충북대학교 인간심리연구소, 학술연구교수, 충북 청주시 서원구 충대로 1 충북대학교 사회과학대학(N15) 인간심리연구소 yuhwahna82@gmail.com
The Effect of Pre-test on Understanding of Jury Instruction: Comparison of Response Change Pattern
Yuhwa Han
Research Institute for the Human Mind

Correspondence to: 한유화, 충북대학교 인간심리연구소, 학술연구교수, 충북 청주시 서원구 충대로 1 충북대학교 사회과학대학(N15) 인간심리연구소, E-mail: yuhwahna82@gmail.com

초록

본 연구의 목적은 배심 설시문 이해도에 대한 사전검사와 사전설시의 효과를 재검증하고, 사전검사의 긍정적인 효과가 무선적 응답변화에 의한 것인지 실제 이해도 변화에 의한 것인지 확인하는 것이었다. 또한 사전검사 후에 제시되는 설시문을 피드백으로 활용하도록 지시하는 방안이 사전검사의 이해도 증진효과를 증대시킬 수 있는지 검증하고, 배심 설시문 이해도와 유무죄 판단의 관련성을 확인하였다. 본 연구에서는 20대 대학생 213명의 자료가 사용되었으며, 참가자들은 본 연구의 다섯 개 실험조건(사전검사, 사전설시, 검사및설시, 설시문활용지시, 통제)에 무선적으로 할당되었다. 연구 결과, 선행연구에서 관찰된 배심 설시문 이해도에 대한 사전검사와 사전설시의 효과는 일부 재현되었다. 사전검사에 의한 응답변화 중 정답으로 응답이 변화할 가능성(응답변화 승산)은 무선자료의 응답변화 승산보다 높았다. 또한 실제 이해도의 변화를 시사하는 응답변화 승산은 사전검사를 실시하는 경우에 그렇지 않은 경우보다 높았고, 사전검사 후에 제시되는 설시문을 피드백으로 활용하도록 명시적으로 지시하는 경우에 그렇지 않을 때보다 높았다. 이러한 결과는 사전검사 후에 피드백을 제공함으로써 배심 설시문에 대한 실제 이해도 변화를 유발할 수 있다는 것을 보여준다. 배심 설시문의 내용 중 사건의 쟁점과 관련된 내용에 대한 이해도만이 일반인의 유무죄 판단을 잘 예측하는 것으로 나타났다. 논의에서는 본 연구의 결과에 기초하여 향후 배심 설시문이 수정되어야 할 방향을 제시하고 배심 설시문 내용과 일반인의 기존 신념을 고려한 이해도 증진방안이 개발되어야 할 필요성을 논의하였다.

Abstract

The current study aimed to replicate pre-test and preliminary instruction effects on jury instruction comprehension and verify whether the reason for the positive effect of pre-test was by random response change or by true knowledge change. The feedback effect of preliminary instruction right after the pre-test and the relationship between the understanding of judicial instruction and lay verdict were also examined. The data from 213 undergraduate students were analyzed. They were randomly assigned to the five experimental groups (pre-test only, pre-instruction only, pre-test & pre-instruction, feedback after pre-test, and control). The effects of pre-test and preliminary instruction on comprehension of jury instruction were partially replicated. The odds of response change from the wrong answer to the right answer were higher than those of random response change. The possibility of response change into the right answer, which implied actual knowledge change, was higher in conditions including pre-test than without pre-test. The possibility was also higher in feedback after pre-test condition than pre-test & pre-instruction condition without the direction for using the pre-instruction (no feedback). These results indicate that pre-test with feedback could lead lay knowledge of judicial instruction to the right understanding of it. In logistic regression, the lay verdict was significantly predicted by the understanding of ‘intention to murder.’ In discussion, the author suggested how to modify jury instruction and the necessity of developing a method to improve jurors’ comprehension of judicial instruction based on prior lay-belief about the instruction.

Keywords:

understanding of jury instruction, testing effect, pre-test, feedback, verdict

키워드:

배심 설시문 이해도, 검사효과, 사전검사, 피드백, 유무죄 판단

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 2016년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2016S1A5A2A03927200).

References

  • Alexander, M. C. (1997, winter). Religiously motivated murder: The Rabin assassination and abortion clinic killings. Arizona Law Review, 39, 1161-1208.
  • Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2020). Re-evaluating how to measure jurors’ comprehension and application of jury instructions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(1), 53-66. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1634195]
  • Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and human Behavior, 23(1), 75-91. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441]
  • Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio‐visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765-776. [https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1036]
  • Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950]
  • Chan, J. C. K. (2010). Long-term effects of testing on the recall of nontested materials. Memory, 18(1), 49-57. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210903405737]
  • Charrow, R. P. & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306-1374. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842]
  • Diamond, S. S. & Levi, J. N. (1995). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79(5), 224-232.
  • Diamond, S. S., Murphy, B., & Rose, M. R. (2012). The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review, 106(4), 1537-1608.
  • Ede, T. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114-136.
  • Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: in ignorance of the law or in light of it?. Law and Human Behavior, 1(2), 163-189. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053437]
  • Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Michie.
  • Essex, R. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Judicial directions and the criminal standard of proof: Improving juror comprehension. Journal of Judicial Administration, 24(2), 75-94.
  • Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6, No. 40.
  • Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Vol. 1). Wiley.
  • Han, Y., Kang, W. Y., & Park, K. (2019). Pre-knowledge and Understanding of Judicial Instruction. Social Science Research Review: Kyungsung University, 35(1), 73-95. [https://doi.org/10.18859/ssrr.2019.2.35.1.73]
  • Han, Y. & Park, K. (2020). The Effects of Pre-test and Preliminary Instruction on The Comprehension of Judicial Instruction. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 34(3), 1-27.
  • Kang, S. H., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5), 528-558. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620]
  • Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327]
  • Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 282-294. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.282]
  • Kim, J. D., Lee, E. L., Han, S. H. (2011). Study on Mock Juror's understanding of Proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Yonsei Law Review, 21(2), 1-42.
  • Kuo, T., & Hirshman, E. (1996). Investigations of the testing effect. American Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 451-464. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1423016]
  • Lee, Y. J. & Jo, E. K. (2014). Effects of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Instruction Types and Use of Question Trail Flowchart on Juror's Comprehension and Verdict. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(4), 71-92. [https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.4.004]
  • National Court Administration (2019). 2008-2018 Performance Analysis of Citizen Participation Trial. Judicial Procedure Office.
  • Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 2(3), 187-193.
  • Randall, J. (2013) Plain English Jury Instructions for Massachusetts: first steps. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
  • Randall, J. (2015). Improving juror comprehension: reading while listening. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. [https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.3023]
  • Randall, J. & Graf, L. (2014) Linguistics meets “legalese”: syntax, semantics, and jury instruction reform. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. [https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.2381]
  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x]
  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x]
  • Roediger, H. L., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Applying cognitive psychology to education: complexities and prospects. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(4), 263-265. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.10.006]
  • Rose, V. G. & Ogloff, J. R. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409-431. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010659703309]
  • Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1463. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559]
  • Runquist, W. N. (1983). Some effects of remembering on forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 11(6), 641-650. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198289]
  • Semmler, C. & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(2), 262-270. [https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262]
  • Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(1), 198-233. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1143210]
  • Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339-350. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0]
  • Thompson, C. P., Wenger, S. K., & Bartling, C. A. (1978). How recall facilitates subsequent recall: A reappraisal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(3), 210-221. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.3.210]
  • Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The testing effect and the retention interval: Questions and answers. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 252-257. [https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252]
  • Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: The testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 247-264. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x]
  • Wheeler, M. A., Ewers, M., & Buonanno, J. F. (2003). Different rates of forgetting following study versus test trials. Memory, 11 (6), 571-580. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000414]
  • Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 516-576. [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516]