In an era where the internet is at our fingertips, the concept of the “impartial juror” is increasingly complex. The courtroom is, traditionally, a place where impartiality reigns and decisions are made based on the evidence presented within its four walls. However, the digital age has introduced new challenges, such as the Google Effect. Jurors, despite instructions to remain untainted by external information, often find themselves influenced by the digital world. Understanding the interplay between digital habits and juror psychology is crucial for safeguarding fair trial processes and mitigating the risks of external influence. This series of articles will help legal professionals understand these challenges and the psychological principles underlying the behaviors and explore ethical means of preserving impartiality in the courtroom and beyond.
In the first part of this series, we explored the Google Effect and how our reliance on search engines is reshaping the way we process and retain information. The convenience of instant answers has profound implications on our cognitive abilities, privacy concerns, and how we perceive knowledge. But, as we dig deeper, we begin to see how this phenomenon interacts with other cognitive biases.
What is the Google Effect?
The Google Effect is a psychological phenomenon where people are increasingly reliant upon the internet, particularly search engines like Google, for information retrieval instead of committing information to memory. (Hreha, 2023). The phenomenon was first identified in a study by Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011), which revealed that people are more likely to remember where to find information rather than the information itself. The study investigated how the availability of information online changes the way people process, store and retrieve information. This shift in memory strategies reflects how technology alters cognitive processes, as it allows individuals to offload certain types of memory tasks to digital tools while reducing deep learning and critical analysis of retained information. (Id.)
In the context of jury duty, this reliance can have profound implications, especially in a world where information is just a few keystrokes away.
Implications of the Google Effect on Juror Behavior
Juries are expected to deliberate based solely on the admissible testimony and evidence presented in court. However, the Google Effect can undermine this principle, as jurors have an innate dependence on online resources, which might skew their perceptions and decisions during trials. Their reliance not only impacts individual memory but also interacts with biases such as confirmation bias, priming and the misinterpretation of information retrieved from search engines. We will cover these biases and how to mitigate them through different approaches over the next few articles within this series.
Jurors are accustomed to using search engines in their daily lives, and without the forethought that they may be selected to serve on a particular jury in the future. Therefore, they may be entering voir dire having been predisposed to a large amount of information which may subconsciously impact their service at trial (Studebaker and Penrod, 1997); or they may subconsciously turn to online resources during trial, despite instructions against that exact behavior. This behavior can lead to a number of outcomes, including but not limited to: more external “fact-checking;” failure to recall essential trial testimony or evidence; exposure to inadmissible evidence which influences judgment beyond the scope of the trial; and thus, undermining impartiality. (Id.)
Navigating Ethical Waters
The American Bar Association’s guidelines prevent attorneys from overtly influencing jurors outside the courtroom. Therefore, priming must serve to enhance the jurors’ understanding of the case within the boundaries of courtroom proceedings, rather than manipulate their perceptions or actions.
However, the digital age poses unique challenges to these ethical boundaries. Cases of jurors using smartphones to research trials underscore the fine line between reinforcing key case themes and unintentionally encouraging unauthorized behavior. For instance in a federal drug trial, a juror’s internet search for case-related details uncovered evidence not presented in court. This discovery, compounded by reports of similar behavior by other jurors, led Judge William J. Zloch to declare a mistrial (Schwartz, 2009). Such incidents highlight the real-world consequences of digital influence.
In the part 2 and 3 of this series, we’ll examine how confirmation bias and priming play a critical role in influencing the way we consume information, especially in the age of Google.
References
Hreha, Jason. (2023) Google Effect – The Behavioral Scientist
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips.” Science, 333(6043). Wayback Machine.
Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Pretrial publicity: The media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2-3), 428–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.428.
Schwartz, J. (2009, March 17). As jurors turn to the web, mistrials are popping up. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries.html
