Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2008. / Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Law and Business. Includes bibliographical references (p. 352-358)

An increasing number of empirical investigations have demonstrated that a wide variety of extra-legal factors are influential in the jury deliberation process and in the verdicts rendered. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if mock jurors possessing high levels of self-actualization would be more resistant to the biasing effects of the courtroom. One hundred eighty subjects were selected on the basis of their scores on the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI). Subjects were divided into two groups, those scoring within the high self-actualized range, and those scoring within the low self-actualized range. From this subject pool, thirty six-person juries were selected; ten high self-actualized simulated juries (HSA), ten mixed self-actualized simulated juries (MSA), composed of fifty percent high and fifty percent low self-actualized subjects, and ten low self-actualized simulated juries (LSA). Statistical analyses of the five hypotheses produced the following results. Hypothesis 1, HSA juries make more pertinent legal evidence remarks than LSA juries, was not supported. Hypothesis 2, HSA juries make more accurate legal evidence statements than LSA juries, was not supported. Hypothesis 3, HSA juries would render more relevant punishment than the LSA juries, was not supported. Hypothesis 4, HSA juries would require less deliberation time than LSA juries, was not supported. Hypothesis 5, HSA and MSA juries would make an equivalent number of remarks regarding pertinent legal evidence, was supported.

No description available.