Jordana Confino

⚖️📊 How do online jury deliberations compare to in-person deliberations? A study recently published in American Psychological Association's Law and Human Behavior compared in-person and virtual mock jury deliberations using a quasi-experimental design: 💠 317 community members 💠 54 mock civil juries 💠 Jurors watched the same pre-recorded trial – a civil case 💠 Deliberations were recorded and systematically coded Across many outcomes, the differences were modest. Jurors in both settings showed: ✔️ high knowledge of the case, ✔️ similar emotional engagement, and ✔️ comparable deliberation length. Some specific differences did emerge: ✔️ Virtual jurors reported greater cognitive effort. ✔️ In-person juries interrupted more often and discussed a broader set of topics. Taken together, the similarities may be more striking than the differences: The authors put it this way: “[T]he differences we observed did not point to virtual juries being significantly worse than in-person juries…. Apropos of the debate over research methods in jury research, our study suggests that virtual deliberations might be an adequate substitute for in-person deliberations, especially if the methodology includes prerecorded interactions.” A few limits matter for interpretation (as they always do): ⚠️ This was a mock jury study, not a live trial. ⚠️ Jurors were not randomly assigned to modality. ⚠️ All evidence was pre-recorded. Live court dynamics weren’t tested. ⚠️ The virtual sample differed demographically. Taken together, the study doesn’t “settle” debates about virtual juries. But it narrows the range of plausible claims. Many strong assertions — both positive and negative — have been made in the past based on opinions, not data. Many of those strong assertions appear to simply be much larger than the effects observed here. 🔬 This study is how good science usually works. Incrementally. With restraint. And with clear limits on what can be concluded. 🔗 Link to the journal in the comments. #psychology #appliedpsychology #law #litigation Brandon May Ph.D

26

4 Comments

"Why psychology needs to get serious about theory," an Article Spotlight featuring the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, contends that if psychology wants to be recognized as a genuinely human science, it must restore theory to its deeper function: clarifying what is true about human existence and addressing the moral implications of such claims. Learn more from author Edwin Gantt, PhD: https://bit.ly/48EzK8t #Philosophy #Psychology

11

This week on the Coaching Magic podcast, we're joined by Dr. Aimie Apigian — a double board-certified physician with master’s degrees in biochemistry and public health, and author of best selling book, The Biology of Trauma. Her work is revolutionizing the way we understand trauma healing by revealing how our cells, not just our minds, store trauma. Dr. Aimie helps me understand the difference between stress and trauma, how our nervous system perceives safety differently than the thinking mind, and examine what this means for us as coaches working with humans. My biggest takeaway came at very end of the episode when she shares that the first step to unpacking pain is not feeling our way through it, but creating safety for it. As coaches, we’re often eager to help clients name the hard thing, unravel the pattern, and move towards growth. But when a nervous system doesn’t feel safe, it will always default to protection. May this episode serve as a reminder: we are coaching humans, who are showing up with allllll their past experiences. Growth doesn’t happen when someone is pushed into the deep end. It happens when they feel safe enough to let the slowest part of them arrive.

31

5 Comments