Understanding How Undergraduate Students and Seniors Perceive Jury Duty and Child Witnesses

Seniors represent an important group of potential jurors; however, there is little research examining their perceptions of jury duty and their jury behaviours. The present study examined seniors as jurors to investigate how they respond to calls for jury duty (i.e., their willingness) and whether they are capable jurors in terms of detecting dishonest testimony (i.e., their ability). Specifically, we examined the influence of the senior opt-out law (that allows seniors to opt-out of jury duty) on seniors' perceptions of jury duty, as well as seniors' ability to distinguish between true and false testimonies from child witnesses. An undergraduate sample was used as a comparison group. From responses on a jury duty questionnaire, we found that informing senior participants about the senior opt-out law at the start of the study did not impact their desire to serve on a jury or their perception of their ability to be a juror. The majority of seniors responded that they would want to serve on a jury if given the opportunity. Further, seniors showed a significantly lower rate of agreement with the senior opt-out law compared to undergraduates. To assess juror perceptions of child witnesses, participants watched a series of eight child interview videos (four truth-tellers and four lie-tellers) and provided credibility assessments and liedetection judgments. Results indicated that for both truth and lie-tellers, seniors provided significantly higher evaluations of children’s competence to testify, overall credibility, honesty, believability, and likeability compared to undergraduates. Although both groups were significantly above chance at detecting lies, seniors were significantly less accurate, were significantly more biased to trust children, and were significantly more confident in these decisions compared to undergraduates. Lastly, participants’ perceptions of their ability to serve as a juror was not related to subsequent lie-detection judgments. Results highlight the importance of continuing to incorporate seniors in the judicial system. Acknowledgements I would like to thank and recognize the many people who have helped me throughout this process. To my supervisor, Angela Evans, thank you for your dedication and positivity. I have learned so much from you over the past several years and you have helped shape my confidence to encourage me to pursue new challenges. It has been and continues to be a fantastic experience to share our excitement for research together. To my MA twin, Breanne, you have made the past two years (both inside and outside of the lab) truly memorable. Our similarities have ensured that I have never felt alone throughout my graduate school experience and our differences have helped challenge me to grow as an academic and as a person. To Sahil, thank you for your unconditional support. You inspire me in many ways and I am lucky to have you by my side. To Taylor, thank you for passing down your wisdom and being such a great role model. To my fellow psychology sister, Claire, thank you for continuing to be the most selfless and caring person that I know. It has been invaluable to be at Brock together and I truly appreciate all the time that you have spent listening to my endless research stories (and presentations). To the rest of my family members, Mom, Dad, Helen, and Joe, thank you for being the most amazing people to spend time with outside of the lab. Lastly, I need to recognize my wonderful lab family, including Tori, Amanda, and all of our research assistants who contribute to such a fun and accepting work environment. In terms of additional academic support, thank you to my committee members, Cathy Mondloch and Gordon Hodson. You both brought new and interesting ideas to contribute to my project and I appreciate your willingness to help over the past two years. Table of