Objectives: Three experiments tested the utility of minimal versus extended voir dire questions in predicting mock jurors’ verdicts and damage awards, and whether the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments could be reduced by judicial rehabilitation. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that extended voir dire questions would be more predictive of case judgments than minimal voir dire questions. We hypothesized that judicial rehabilitation would not reduce this impact of preexisting attitudes on case judgments. Method: Across three experiments, each focusing on a different civil case (insurance bad faith, wrongful birth, medical malpractice misdiagnosis), online participants (N=2,041; 62% female; 77% White, 9% African American, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Hispanic or Latino/a; Mage=40) were paid Mturk workers. They were randomly assigned to experience (a) no voir dire, minimal voir dire focusing on previous legal experience and self-identification of biases, or extended voir dire focusing on specific attitudes about civil litigation, parties, and laws, before judging the case and (b) no judicial rehabilitation, or judicial rehabilitation. Participants read a civil case, made case judgments, and completed bias awareness measures. Results: Demographic information and minimal voir dire questions did not predict case judgments, but the majority of extended voir dire responses predicted verdicts and damage awards. Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments—but did result in mock jurors reporting that they were less biased, despite judicial rehabilitation not actually reducing their bias. Conclusions: Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases has little utility. Further, although judicial rehabilitation might make jurors think that they are less biased, it may not actually reduce the impact of their preexisting attitudes on their case decisions. Public interest statement: Contrary to popular belief, juror biases are not likely to be cured by judicial rehabilitation, and might backfire by creating the illusion in jurors that they are unbiased. Although very few mock jurors were able to self-identify things that might bias them when asked general questions in voir dire, they were willing to admit specific attitudes that biased their verdicts and damage awards when asked. Thus, we suggest reducing bias on juries by allowing attorneys to ask specific, detailed voir dire questionnaires crafted by the parties to streamline the jury selection process and remove jurors for cause or via peremptory challenges, rather than relying on “quick fixes”, such as general questions that ask jurors to self-identify their own bias or judicial rehabilitation.

中文翻译：

---

民事案件中模拟陪审员决定的最小与延长 voir dire 和司法康复的影响。

目标：三个实验测试了最小和扩展的 voir 可怕问题在预测模拟陪审员的判决和损害赔偿方面的效用，以及他们先前存在的态度对案件判决的偏见影响是否可以通过司法康复来减少。假设：我们假设扩展的 voir dire 问题比最小的 voir dire 问题更能预测案件判断。我们假设司法康复不会减少先前存在的态度对案件判决的影响。方法：在三个实验中，每个实验都针对不同的民事案件（保险失信、错误出生、医疗事故误诊），在线参与者（N=2,041；62% 女性；77% 白人，9% 非洲裔美国人，6% 亚裔/太平洋岛民，6% 的西班牙裔或拉丁裔/a；法师 = 40) 获得了 Mturk 工人的报酬。他们被随机分配到 (a) 没有 voir dire，最小的 voir dire 侧重于以前的法律经验和对偏见的自我识别，或扩展的 voir dire 侧重于对民事诉讼、当事人和法律的具体态度，然后再判断案件和(b) 没有司法改造或司法改造。参与者阅读民事案件，作出案件判决，并完成偏见意识措施。结果：人口统计信息和最小的 voir 可怕问题不能预测案件判决，但大多数扩展的 voir 可怕反应预测判决和损害赔偿。司法改造并没有减少他们先前存在的态度对案件判决的偏见影响——但确实导致模拟陪审员报告说他们的偏见较少，尽管司法改造实际上并没有减少他们的偏见。结论：律师需要有机会在听证会期间向陪审员询问可能会影响他们的决定的具体态度，因为依靠陪审员对自己偏见的自我认同几乎没有用处。此外，尽管司法康复可能使陪审员认为他们的偏见较少，但实际上可能不会减少他们先前存在的态度对其案件决定的影响。公共利益声明：与普遍的看法相反，陪审员的偏见不太可能通过司法康复来治愈，并且可能会通过让陪审员产生他们没有偏见的错觉而适得其反。尽管很少有模拟陪审员能够在被问到一般性问题时自我识别可能使他们产生偏见的事情，但当被问到时，他们愿意承认使他们的判决和损害赔偿产生偏见的具体态度。因此，