Social Cognition
Mock Jury Task
Also called: mock juror task, jury simulation, juror decision-making task, mock trial verdicts
Measure juror verdicts, confidence and awards across eight invented civil and criminal cases, with evidence strength, standard of proof or evidence order set by your study.
7-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 353
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Participants read eight short civil and criminal case summaries and give a verdict, their confidence and, for a civil defendant found liable, an award. Measures verdicts by evidence strength, standard of proof or evidence order.
Constructs
- Legal decision making
- Evidence evaluation
- Standard of proof
- Decision confidence
Research uses
- Legal psychology research
- Jury decision research
- Research on evidence order and judicial instructions
How the paradigm works
The Mock Jury Task asks each participant to act as a juror. Eight original case summaries, four civil cases about damage or loss and four minor criminal cases, each give the charge or claim, two points of evidence for each side and the court's instruction on the standard of proof. After each case, participants give a verdict (guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable), rate how sure they are from 0 to 100 and, after a civil verdict against the defendant, choose an award from 0 to the claim in units. Jurors decide alone, with no deliberation.
More about the paradigm
One factor varies between cases, chosen by the study: the strength of each case's key evidence (standard), the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt or more likely than not) or the order of the evidence (the accusing side heard last or first). The session seed gives two cases of each type to each level and shuffles the case order, and the verdict buttons keep one order for the whole session. When the standard or the order varies, every case uses its close version, where those factors can change a verdict.
Scores are verdict rates, mean confidence and award shares for all cases and for each level, with the difference in verdict rates between the two levels. A verdict is a judgment of an invented case, and no verdict is correct. The end screen tells participants that the cases, people and events were invented. Instructions and cases are available in eight languages.
Scores
- Guilty or Liable Rate%
- Share of the eight verdicts that go against the defendant: guilty in criminal cases, liable in civil cases.
- Higher means more verdicts against defendants in this case set.
- Criminal Guilty Rate%
- Share of guilty verdicts in the four criminal cases.
- Compare between conditions or studies; no verdict is correct.
- Civil Liable Rate%
- Share of liable verdicts in the four civil cases.
- Compare between conditions or studies; no verdict is correct.
- Mean Confidencescore
- Mean confidence in one's own verdict, from 0 (not sure at all) to 100 (completely sure).
- Higher means more certain verdicts.
- Mean Award Share%
- Mean award as a share of the claim, over civil cases with a liable verdict; null without one.
- Higher means larger awards for the claims.
- Strong Evidence Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant in strong-evidence cases; null unless the study varies evidence.
- Usually higher than the weak-evidence rate.
- Weak Evidence Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant in weak-evidence (close) cases; null unless the study varies evidence.
- Compare with the strong-evidence rate.
- Evidence Effect%
- Strong-evidence rate minus weak-evidence rate.
- Positive values mean verdicts followed the strength of the evidence.
- Strong Evidence Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, in strong-evidence cases.
- Compare with weak-evidence cases.
- Weak Evidence Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, in weak-evidence cases.
- Compare with strong-evidence cases.
- Strong Evidence Award Share%
- Mean award share in strong-evidence civil cases with a liable verdict.
- Compare with weak-evidence cases.
- Weak Evidence Award Share%
- Mean award share in weak-evidence civil cases with a liable verdict.
- Compare with strong-evidence cases.
- More Likely Than Not Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant when the court asks for more likely than not; null unless the study varies the standard of proof.
- Usually higher than under reasonable doubt.
- Reasonable Doubt Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant when the court asks for proof beyond reasonable doubt; null unless the study varies the standard of proof.
- Compare with the more-likely-than-not rate.
- Standard of Proof Effect%
- More-likely-than-not rate minus reasonable-doubt rate.
- Positive values mean the stricter standard led to fewer verdicts against the defendant.
- More Likely Than Not Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, under the more-likely-than-not standard.
- Compare with the reasonable-doubt standard.
- Reasonable Doubt Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, under the reasonable-doubt standard.
- Compare with the more-likely-than-not standard.
- More Likely Than Not Award Share%
- Mean award share in civil cases with a liable verdict under the more-likely-than-not standard.
- Compare with the reasonable-doubt standard.
- Reasonable Doubt Award Share%
- Mean award share in civil cases with a liable verdict under the reasonable-doubt standard.
- Compare with the more-likely-than-not standard.
- Accusation Last Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant when the accusing side's evidence came last; null unless the study varies the order.
- Compare with the defense-last rate.
- Defense Last Rate%
- Verdicts against the defendant when the defense's evidence came last, the usual trial order; null unless the study varies the order.
- Compare with the accusation-last rate.
- Order Effect%
- Accusation-last rate minus defense-last rate.
- Positive values mean the side heard last gained, a recency effect.
- Accusation Last Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, when the accusing side's evidence came last.
- Compare with the defense-last order.
- Defense Last Confidencescore
- Mean confidence, from 0 to 100, when the defense's evidence came last.
- Compare with the accusation-last order.
- Accusation Last Award Share%
- Mean award share in civil cases with a liable verdict when the claimant's evidence came last.
- Compare with the defense-last order.
- Defense Last Award Share%
- Mean award share in civil cases with a liable verdict when the defendant's evidence came last.
- Compare with the accusation-last order.
- Verdictscount
- Verdicts scored in the selected run, one per case.
- 8 in a complete run.
- Planned Verdictscount
- Verdicts the run plans: 8.
- Compare with Verdicts.
- Rule Check Correct0/1
- 1 when the rule check was answered correctly, 0 when not; null without a check.
- 0 is flagged for review.
- Median Reading Timems
- Median time on the case screens, over times of at least 100 ms.
- Reading pace for the case summaries.
- Median Verdict Timems
- Median time to choose a verdict after reading, over times of at least 100 ms.
- Decision pace.
- Anticipationscount
- Verdicts given in under 100 ms.
- Should be 0.
Use and evidence
353 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 2% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 85 of 632 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 96 |
| 2024 | 70 |
| 2023 | 75 |
| 2022 | 58 |
| 2021 | 54 |
| 2020 | 62 |
| 2019 | 76 |
| 2018 | 74 |
| 2017 | 78 |
| 2016 | 69 |
| 2015 | 50 |
| 2014 | 72 |
| 2013 | 71 |
| 2012 | 68 |
| 2011 | 67 |
| 2010 | 55 |
| 2009 | 59 |
| 2008 | 41 |
| 2007 | 41 |
| 2006 | 43 |
| 2005 | 22 |
| 2004 | 38 |
| 2003 | 28 |
| 2002 | 40 |
| 2001 | 28 |
| 2000 | 26 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 114
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Original invented cases read alone, with no deliberation; awards in units; no population norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Cases
- 8 original case summaries: 4 civil cases about damage or loss, with claims of 30 to 80 units, and 4 minor criminal cases. Each gives the charge or claim, two points of evidence for each side and the court's instruction.
- Answers
- A verdict (guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable), confidence from 0 to 100 and, after a civil verdict against the defendant, an award from 0 to the claim.
- Conditions
- One factor varies, with 2 cases of each type per level by the session's seed: evidence strength (standard), the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt or more likely than not) or evidence order (the accusing side heard last or first).
- Order
- Seeded case order, and one verdict button order for the whole session. Untimed, with one rule check and feedback before the cases.
- Scores
- Verdict rates, mean confidence and award shares overall and at each level, the difference in verdict rates between levels, and completion and timing measures.
- Cases and debrief
- Everyday disputes and minor offenses written for this task. The end screen tells participants the cases were invented.
Jurors decide alone: there is no deliberation. Awards are in units, and a verdict describes a judgment of a case, not the person.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: one verdict per case in the selected run, with its confidence and any award. No verdict is correct, and repeated verdicts are allowed. Missing verdicts or a wrong rule check are flagged. Verdicts under 200 ms on at least half the cases invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Verdicts describe judgments of invented cases, not the person who gives them. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| What varies between cases | Evidence strength (standard) | Evidence strength (standard), Standard of proof, Order of the evidence |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Mock Jury Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Bornstein, 1999; Devine et al., 2001), with the standard settings (what varies between cases: Evidence strength). The main score was guilty or liable rate (share of the eight verdicts that go against the defendant: guilty in criminal cases, liable in civil cases).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- 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
- Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
- MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21Reasonable-doubt and preponderance-of-evidence instructions, the standard-of-proof setting.
- Costabile, K. A., & Klein, S. B. (2005). Finishing strong: Recency effects in juror judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2701_5Incriminating evidence heard late or early, the order setting.
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Mock Jury Task take?
About 7 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Guilty or Liable Rate, Criminal Guilty Rate, Civil Liable Rate, Mean Confidence, Mean Award Share, Strong Evidence Rate, Weak Evidence Rate, Evidence Effect, Strong Evidence Confidence, Weak Evidence Confidence, Strong Evidence Award Share, Weak Evidence Award Share, More Likely Than Not Rate, Reasonable Doubt Rate, Standard of Proof Effect, More Likely Than Not Confidence, Reasonable Doubt Confidence, More Likely Than Not Award Share, Reasonable Doubt Award Share, Accusation Last Rate, Defense Last Rate, Order Effect, Accusation Last Confidence, Defense Last Confidence, Accusation Last Award Share, Defense Last Award Share, Verdicts, Planned Verdicts, Rule Check Correct, Median Reading Time, Median Verdict Time and Anticipations. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Mock Jury Task used in research?
353 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 2% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 85 of 632 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Mock Jury Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
What varies between cases (Evidence strength (standard), Standard of proof, Order of the evidence). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.