Running head PERSONALITY INVENTORIES1PERSONALITY INVENTORIE.docx

Running head: PERSONALITY INVENTORIES 1
PERSONALITY INVENTORIES 9
Personality Inventories as Evidence of Personality
Matthew M. Rosario
University of the Rookies
May 15, 2018
Abstract
It can be difficult to understand law in relations to psychology
and the way behavior can be explained in a more practical
application. Unfortunately, the advancement of psychology and
the perception of law are at a constant struggle with each other
because law is specific and psychology is changing.
Understanding how juror verdict come to be not from a lawyer
standpoint by a psychological one can be beneficial as far a
juror selection. Juror selection is the most important part during
pre-trial services. Being able to use science to investigate juror
personality in regards to personality evidence can create a new
theory in psychology and law once the research begins and the

length and understanding of the topic is better. This paper will
outline information of my research topic.
Personality Inventories as Evidence of Personality
It can be difficult to understand law in relations to
psychology and the way behavior can be explained in a more
practical application. Unfortunately, the advancement of
psychology and the perception of law are at a constant struggle
with each other because law is specific and psychology is
changing. Law does not change in theory, but psychology does
which enhances psychological understanding of the world.
Being able to identify juror in favor of a particlar postion
during “Voir Dire” can be beneficial during legal preceedings.
Voir dire is the ability to rehabilitate the jury by allowing the
judge and attorney to observe and ask questions to eliminate
bias jurors before selecting the final 12 jurors who will preside
over the case (Erik, Marek, 2016). Unfortunately, this method
can be used in order to evaluate which juror would be most
benefical for a particlar lawyer during a trial. In other words,
lawyers have the ability to munapluate the selction process in
order to gain juror in their favor. According to Schuller,
Erentzen, Vo, and Li (2015) it is the right for one to be tried by
an impartial and independent jury from one’s peers, but this can
be difficult when peers can be prejudice or possibly chosen by
attorneys to benefit their position. At this time there is mininal
psychological assessement being conducted in order to
understand the jurors position outside of their biases. Because

this is a new topic emerging in studies, more research needs to
be conducted in order to understand the bases of trial science
and the annotation of using trial consultant to create mock trials
for juror selection for their advantage. Due to trial science
being a new specialty this lead to the research topic can
personality inventories indicate a juror verdict during trial?
Many researchers concluded that juror background demographic
information, education and personality could influence a juror
verdict, but did not conduct a study outside of mata-anaysis.
Therefore, the theroy that personality inventories indicate a
juror verdict during trail will allow further explanation of
personality and its relasionship to decsion making skills.
Essence of Research
The essence of the topic is led by the ideology of
personality traits and the influence of decision making based on
evidence presented in court. Understanding personality traits
not just only in behavior, but in decision making based on trial
and evidence can led to a different type of personality influence
and personality facet in regards to evidence trait. There is no
scientific framework for juror selection, but to understand juror
bias introducing personality inventories to understanding juror
precipitation, strengths, and weakness may be able to contribute
to developing a juror’s selection personality inventories or
evidence trait inventories. According to Gardner, Titcomb,
Cramer, Stroud, and Bate (2013) refer to perceiver personality
as an individual difference in tendencies to view other
interpersonal perceptions across situations. In other words,
perceived personality in juror selection can evaluate
interpersonal perception in perceived information or situations
regarding a particular event. Personality traits in the courtroom
have a significant effect on attitudes and judgment across
context in perceived similarities with juror’s personality traits.
Gardner et al., (2013) investigated the potential influence of
mock juror’s perceived similarity on perceptions of expert
witnesses in a courtroom. Moreover over Gardner et al., (2013)
believed greater global perceived personality similarity would

be associated with favorable views of the expert witness in
juror’s verdict. Likewise, According to Ingrishlli (2015), the
sixth amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by
an impartial jury. But a jury cannot be impartial do to
personality traits and influences. In considering what
personality is, the context is important. Everyday people make
assessments about their personality or characteristics of other
people’s personality. When considering the study of personality,
the components make a difference in the definition. These
components include whether the characteristic is enduring or
consistent, whether it is distinctive or universal (Cervone, 2016,
p. 7), both the psychological and physiological characteristics,
how characteristics impact on how we respond to our
environment and causes us to act, and how personality is
displayed in multiple ways (Cherry, 2016). There are many
theories about personality and when our personality is shaped
and how consistent it is. The general consensus is that it shaped
early in life and remains fairly consistent (Vitelli, 2015).
However, there is evidence that life experiences can influence
personality changes, particularly life changing experiences
(Cervone, 2016, p. 20-22; Vitelli, 2015). This merely contribute
to stereotypes in a link demographic and personality variable
(Ream, 2009). Ream (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of
several researchers to focus on the sixth amendment right.
Therefore, evidence trait in regards to personality inventories
can help explain juror decision making beforehand based of
their personality. This is a new topic emerging in our studies,
more research needs to be conducted and understanding how
other elements contribute to trial verdicts and the ideology
behind personality or evidence influential traits effecting
verdicts in the courtroom.
Relevant to Field
The research topic is relevant to the field of trial science
in many contributing factors in correlation with juror selection
and evidence presentation. Since, law and order in the
foundation of our society and the understanding of innocent

behavior proven guilty adds another element of surprise for this
research topic. Understanding that juror have a prescribed or
precursor of personality trait which can influence their verdict
may affect the sixth amendment right because of influences and
impartial personality traits that can led a juror to vote or chose
a verdict in favor or against a position. The APA suggests that
personality can be assessed. It is considered a proficiency in
professional psychology used to refine clinical diagnosis,
inform psychological interventions and increase the accuracy of
behavioral prediction and must be done with specialized
knowledge and the use of skills and procedures that are
established (APA, 2016). A personality assessment is a set of
steps to determine information about an individual’s personality
and it is done to predict behavior, conduct research, and in
clinical settings to provide information for diagnosis and
treatment (Cervone & Pervin, 2016, p. 38-39). Understanding
this can a personality assessment be created to pinpoint
particular evidence based testimony which can influence a
person’s particular personality to cause them to lean more
towards their position being presented. The relevance to the
field of trail science is that of the utmost importance because if
we are able to pinpoint particular evidence based traits to
personality traits in regards to evidence traits/evidence
presented in a trial this can help trial consultant understand or
predict how a juror would vote based on a personality
assessment data or even answer to questions asked during voir
dire. Moreover, this will enhance the understanding of juror
selection and will improve the selection process during voir
dire.
Improving Client Service and Advancement
Practitioners will be able to improve client service during
trial consultation in many different ways which will be
beneficial. Practitioner will be able to understand evidence
based traits in regards to juror’s personality which will allow
them to evaluate and explain to their client the best possible
outcome during juror selection. Since voir dire allow both sides

to choose the jury this process would only work best if the
lawyer has a trial consultant or understand how this assessment
being creating or evaluating during my research will work.
Practitioners will be able to improve their service by giving
their client in advantage during juror selection. If practitioners
are able to utilize the information presented in my research this
may change the way all trial scientist will conduct their mock
trial and research for their servicing clients. This will allow
practitioners to break down different personality and evidence
which will allow them to educate their clients in understanding
how a particular evidence and can be predetermined to effect a
juror verdict based on their personality traits. It is interesting
that there is no universal operationalized definition for this
concept yet, but this research will help practitioners discover
this. There are different studies of personality traits and
different personality concepts, but we do not have a proper
definition of personality evidence because it is a very difficult
concept to understand and has not be research at this time.
Being able to present the finding for this research will allow
other practitioner to investigate similar concept or evolve the
concept or thesis being presented today.
Audience for Research
The audience for this research study will be for lawyers,
forensic psychologist and trial scientist. This will allow the
audience to understanding not only the purpose for personality,
but also how it can affect the way a person can interpret
particular evidence in relation to their personality facets. The
audience in which will be interested in this topic will be
forensic psychologist and trial scientist because to will allow
their expertise to expend and allow them to understanding the
important of juror selection or even as an expert witness.
Likewise, this will benefit lawyers during voir dire and allow
them to have a deeper understanding of the important of juror
selections. The results of the study will be used in order to
educate and create an assessment which will measure juror’s
personality which can affect their decisions or verdict during a

trial. In other words, perceived personality in juror selection
can evaluate interpersonal perception in perceived information
or situations regarding a particular event. This will allow the
understanding of the theory of evidence personality as it effect
verdict outcomes based on a juror personality facet. Because we
are a going society there will always be room for growth and
advancement. The opportunity is endless when the audience is
effected by the information of the research and will allow
further research to be conducted in order to expend the current
topic under research. In evaluating this topic I would like the
audience of this topic to understand the importance of science
development and how law must change with time in order to
keeps it integrity in part. Law is integrity in order to improve
this it is important for law to understand psychological
advantages and disadvantages with knowing how juror
personality can affect the verdict of the trial based on evidence
personality. The idea that we all have personality of evidence
which is affected by our personality facets and how we
understanding a perceive information presenting in a court
room. Moreover, this research will improve the audience view
of law and psychology being not separate but together to serve
justice for all.
Scholar and Practitioner
As a scholar and practitioner I am interested in the answer to
my research question. I am interested in the answer because it is
a new type of psychology which has little research.
Understanding how juror verdict come to be not from a lawyer
standpoint by a psychological one can be beneficial as far a
juror selection. Juror selection is the most important part during
pre-trial services. Being able to use science to investigate juror
personality in regards to personality evidence can create a new
theory in psychology and law once the research begins and the
length and understanding of the topic is better. Trial science is a
developing science and with any new science new research must
be conduct and proven as science to make an academic or
clinical stand. Because of this I am interested in research juror

verdict in regards to can personality inventories indicate a juror
verdict during trial. Being able to establish a new theory or new
study not currently researched is important to the advancement
of psychology and forensic psychology in and of itself. The
application of trial science can be drawn up from understanding
juror’s personality and juror’s background in order to influence
judgment in a particular favor. Personality is the key to any
lawyer and having the basic science and knowledge on this can
allow an advantage. This is way I study the research topic
presented early in this paper. Knowledge is power and in order
to unlock to secret of personality and it effects of juror verdict.
References
Cervone, D., Pervin, L.A. (2016). Chapters One and Two.
Personality Theory and Research, 13th

Edition. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Crocker, C. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). The effects of
rehabilitative voir dire on juror bias and decision making. Law
and Human Behavior,34(3), 212-226. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-
9193-9
Gardner, B. O., Cramer, R. J., Titcomb, C. R., Stroud, C. H., &
Bate, B. P. (n.d.). Examining the Effects of Perceived
Personality Match on Perceptions of Expert Testimony.
PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e571212013-093
Ingriselli, Elizabeth, "Mitigating Jurors’ Racial Biases: The
Effects of Content and Timing of Jury Instructions" (2015).
Student Prize Papers. 119.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylsspps_papers/119
Ream, R. A. (2009). Limited Voir Dire. Criminal Justice, 23(4),
22.
Schuller, R. A., Erentzen, C., Vo, A., & Li, D. (2015).
Challenge for a cause: Bias screening procedures and their
application in a Canadian courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law,21(4), 407-419. doi:10.1037/law0000056
Vitelli, R. (2015). Can you change your personality?
Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-
spotlight/201509/can-you-change-your- personality
Redwood City, Calif.—Capitalism’s ultimate heroes were once
the professional CEOs. Get an MBA; do time at P&G, GE, or
IBM ; find a company that needs a turnaround artist, cost cutter
or dealmaker. Glory went to those who scaled the corporate
ladder.
These days, we celebrate those attempting to knock the ladder
down. Chobani Inc. founder Hamdi Ulukaya calls these types of
leaders the anti-CEOs who believe “the playbook that guided
business and CEOs for the last 40 years is broken.” A better

CEO blueprint, he contends, includes employing fairer pay
policies, adopting social causes and weighing in on politics.
These are relatively easy words to live by if you’re a CEO of a
private company like Chobani, shielded from investors and
analysts constantly pressuring you to make the numbers. But
how will this anti-CEO ethic play in public markets?
A 65-year-old biochemist who wears his old running shoes to
work is preparing to find out. Pat Brown, the man behind plant-
based meat maker Impossible Foods Inc., is becoming a bit
oflightning rod for those who think environmentalists just want
to take away our gasoline, steaks and styrofoam. Mr. Brown is
out to change the world through good old-fashion capitalism
instead of coercion, and his company’s multibillion-dollar
private valuation has Wall Street salivating for an initial public
offering. His plant-based products infused with soy
leghemoglobin, or “heme,” replicate the taste of beef. Items like
Impossible Whoppers or Impossible Lettuce Wraps are on their
way to becoming as well-known as Happy Meals. Dining on
Impossible Burgers and Impossible Pizza at an Italian restaurant
on Stanford University’s campus Tuesday, Mr. Brown talked
about practices that could be at odds with the desires of
investors. He wants to continually cut prices for instance. After
the plates are cleared, he wonders out loud if there is a way to
make sure the Impossiblites working lower-paid jobs are
compensated more like the brass. He already pays a “thriving
wage,” but he seems uncomfortable with the idea that some of
his employees are using a raise to simply get their head above
water while others may be using them to buy a vacation home.
Mr. Brown is the guy to be asking this question. He lives in the
same small condominium he bought when working as a Stanford
professor. It’s crammed this week with visits from his kids and
grandchild.
Mr. Brown says his goal is to ‘get to the point where animal
food as a technology no longer works because the economic
model is no longer viable.’
Impossible’s founder is polarizing but confident he has a broad

message Wall Street will embrace when the company goes
public. Rival Beyond Meat Inc.’s 2019 IPO indicates there is
room for enviro-foodies on the stock market. Shares trade above
its initial price but below the all-time high. But Mr. Brown
realizes there isn’t as much appetite for sanctimony. He wants
the free market to choose his product because it’s better.
“It’s not going to work telling people how to eat,” he says. “It’s
never worked. What we need to do is get to the point where
animal food as a technology no longer works because the
economic model is no longer viable.” You only do that by
offering superior options at a lower price.
“Pat made it sexy to sell vegan and vegetarian food to non-
vegans,” Mike Selden, a 28-year-old founder and CEO of
Finless Foods in the Bay Area, told me Monday. “He is a role
model.” Mr Selden’s company is producing fish by taking cells
from tuna and cultivating them in the lab.
Mr. Brown is preparing the way for these green entrepreneurs,
promising early-stage investors that they could support his goal
of providing cleaner eating options and still get filthy rich. That
pitch worked, raising $750 million in recent years. But Wall
Street has fickle tastes.
What if you miss profit targets once you’re public? What
happens if the rapidly growing staff needs to be cut or R&D
needs to be trimmed? What if the red-hot plant-based meat craze
abruptly cools?
These questions make for rich debates among pundits on CNBC,
but are as appealing to this vegan founder as a baloney
sandwich.
“It’s been beaten into business people that they have to think of
all the ways something might fail,” Mr. Brown told me. “A big
part of my job is reminding people of the importance of what we
are doing.”
Impossible was founded to address the outsize role animal
agriculture has in contributing to global warming, he says.
When I ask if he’d ever consider tweaking his seemingly
impossible goal of entirely replacing animal protein with the

plant-based kind by 2035, he tells me that if he doesn’t succeed
the planet is screwed, although he uses a more colorful word.
“No one at the company or in the world is as committed to this
as me.” Impossible’s employees who “came for the mission” are
aligned.
This sense of mission is at the heart of what makes great
entrepreneurs great. Even if we think of Elon Musk as a loose
cannon, or Steve Jobs as a bit of a jerk, or Pat Brown as a bit of
a zealot (he calls himself an evangelist), it’s hard not to root for
them.
Harvard Business School’s annual list of the top 100 performing
CEOs includes only a small fraction of founders, and Fortune
100 companies are overwhelmingly run by non-founding
leaders, but still we spend substantial time analyzing the people
who start stuff.
Mr. Brown didn’t start out as an entrepreneur. As a scientist, his
DNA research led to lifesaving discoveries. In his mid 50s, Mr.
Brown took a sabbatical, asked how he could most effectively
help the planet and landed on making tastier alternative meats.
Mr. Brown is dogged in this crusade. He has an arsenal of
scientific research, demographic trends and climate data to
defend his case. I’ve been told by an executive at another
company he declined to take a job at Impossible after Mr.
Brown essentially asked if he’d be willing to take a bullet for
the cause.
But he is also diplomatic. Mr. Brown repeatedly welcomes me
to disagree. “Please challenge me,” he says repeatedly. He
encourages me to consider Impossible products even if I don’t
buy into the environmental argument.
I’d more readily dismiss Mr. Brown if he didn’t practice what
he preaches about conservation.
Drinking after-dinner espresso, we chatted about the retired
marathon-running shoes he’s wearing. He wore a similar pair
when I first met him at a White Castle in 2018, when he joined
the burger chain’s CEO in a suburban Detroit launch of the
Impossible Slider. He also had a pair of sneakers on when I

watched him speak last month in Las Vegas to a crowded room
of executives and politicians during the Consumer Electronics
Show.
I’m a jogger, and I understand running shoes are still fine for
walking around in after they lose their bounce. But I’m a sucker
for new stuff. Mr. Brown chides me: “Why throw out a perfectly
good pair of shoes?”
As I wait for my Uber to pick me up after dinner, I watch to see
if the founder of one of Silicon Valley’s hottest startups at least
drives a pricey Tesla like the other hotshots in these parts. I
shouldn’t have been surprised to see him whirl around and out
of the parking lot in a modest Chevy Bolt.
RELATED ARTICLES
· America’s Cattle Ranchers Are Fighting Back Against Fake
Meat
· Fast Food Embraces Meatless Burgers, but There Aren’t
Enough to Go Around
· How to Get Die-Hard Meat Eaters to Try Impossible Burgers:
Trick Them
· The Modern Meaning of Meat
Running Head: BEFORE THE VERDICT: PROTECT THE
BIAS SENTENCES 1
BEFORE THE VERDICT: PROTECT THE BIAS SENTENCES
7

Before the Verdict Sentence Bias
Matthew M. Rosario
Ashford University
June 22, 2019
Abstract
Despite this, the approached and outcome of a trial is
determined early on during a variation in court using the voir
dire procedure to select and manage the jury. According to
Mulvaney and Little (2015), the importance of pre-trial
composition and attention to jury selection grants judges
significant discretion and strategies to reduce bias among
jurors. Kerr and Jung (2018) research whether or not trial
evidence should be presented to jurors before trial. Many states
to include (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia)
have become more relaxed to permit a juror to discuss evidence
before deliberation. The perceptions of jury selection in
psychological literature focus on impartial bias during a trial in
the courtroom. There are empirical studies which demonstrated
the mechanism of counsel using the voir dire process to gain an
advantage during a trial. Due to this, it is important to
understand the literature review of the jury selection process to
improve the selection theory of juries. More specifically, can
personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine
a jury’s verdict?

Before the Verdict Sentence Bias
Literature Review Synthesizes and Summary
Often time, many court cases are won or lost before trial
because of the composition of the jury. Despite this, the
approached and outcome of a trial is determined early on during
a variation in court using the voir dire procedure to select and
manage the jury. According to Mulvaney and Little (2015), the
importance of pre-trial composition and attention to jury
selection grants judges significant discretion and strategies to
reduce bias among jurors. In other words, this allows the courts
to craft an approach to maximize the chance of success during a
trial. The courts may permit attorneys to examine prospective
jurors and ask questions to consider proper. The voir dire
process determines bias or prejudice of juror during selectin and
falls under two categories such as determining basic statutory
requirements for the jury and to reduce and determine prejudice
(Mulvaney and Little, 2015). Many courts allow panelist to
assess to determine the requirements before the process of voir
dire. Prospective jurors response during voir dire provides the
opportunity for attorneys to exercise their peremptory
challenges. Peremptory challenges allow lawyers to dismiss a
jury without cause. The number of peremptory challenge ranges
between state and local laws.
During this time, the opportunity to condition the jury and
commitment to the case it developed. More, importantly this is
the first time jurors meet the attorneys and hear about the case
in order assess the juror ability to analyze evidence and to see if

there is any prejudice or experience which will affect the juror
to be impartial during the trial (Mulvaney and Little, 2015). The
effect of these decision early on can affect the outcome, but
over the year, it has been increasingly hard to prevent prejudice
or bias decision according to Crocker and Kovera (2010).
Because of this, it has come difficult for judges and attorney to
conclude whether or not venireperson is truly impartial.
Venireperson are juror going through the process of selection,
and although attorneys and judges have peremptory challenges
and challenges for cause, this does not always provide insight of
unaware bias a venireperson fails to report (Crocker and
Kovera, 2010). The integrity of the venirperson is important,
and a factor which influences their behavior must be noted, and
proper research must be completed to challenge and impartial
viewing. The theme of impartial and bias has permitted trial
evidence before jury selection to promote explanation of bias
(Kerr and Jung, 2018).
Kerr and Jung (2018) research whether or not trial
evidence should be presented to jurors before trial. Many states
to include (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia)
have become more relaxed to permit a juror to discuss evidence
before deliberation. For instance, in Arizona, during a civil
trial, a juror is allowed to deliberate about the cases in their
hotel rooms. Many states are considering this approach for civil
cases, but it is hard to determine the individual processing style
and juror bias outside of the courtroom. According to Gunnell
and Stephen (2010), a cognitive experiential self-theory (CEST)
demonstrates and suggest that information processing proceeds
within two paths and realistic jurors are jurors capable of
overcoming bias and life influence. Within the legal skeptics
justified in a claim that once juror is selected, it does not mean
they will not be bias and impartial minded toward the case.
Extralegal influence is a growing body within the literature of
social science that focuses on characteristics of juror decision
and the possible attraction leniency bias (Gunnell and Stephen,
2010). One of the most compelling evidence of attractiveness on

juror decision has increased in literature, which allows
consistency withstood of significant bias. Individual difference
applied to juror decision making has shown the difference in
personality and cognitive ability among the effect of juror
performance and problem-solving skills (Gunnell and Stephen,
2010). The socio-cognitive theory within substantial research
outweighs the highly punitive decision of the court and more
prone to conviction when the status quo is not reached.
Therefore, the independent assessment of parallel cognitive
systems of the conscious mind or unconscious mind can have an
analytical impact on the evidence-based understanding of
jurors. So, can society have an impartial juror panel? What are
the causes of juror deliberation coming up with a unanimous
verdict? What leads to jurors to change their initial assessment
whether or not to vote guilty or not guilty.
Using a systemic analysis of juror bias, it is important to
understand how juror decision-making is influenced by an
emotional child witness testimony. According to Cooper, Quas,
and Clevland (2014) researched the assumed notion that
emotional child witness plays a role in the judical process and
effect jurors’ decision courses possible bias or impartial
judgment. Why us this so important? Children witness can make
it difficult for any person to think straight, but as a society we
entrust adults to stay open, but how this is possible when
children witness are emotional and according to Cooper et al.
(2014), 5 out of 7 cases with a child witness resulted in a
verdict of guilty. This can be viewed as a possible bias or
emotional connection with the child witness leading to a guilty
verdict. However, it is important to understand we do have a
perfect system within selecting jurors because at any time a
juror can change their decision for better or worst depending on
how they are feeling, personality modalities. Therefore, how do
we have a fair or somewhat far legal system, when we deprive
of all different walk of life. Legal is straight forward, but
understanding how personality modalities affect juries decision-
making skills can play a vital role within the system and

improve the process.
Trends and Patterns of Jurors Bais
According to Williams (2015), the problems and criticisms
of jury vior dire are that in particular, the law should change to
grantee attorney understand and can successfully conduct jury
voir dire but considering each jury vior dir option separately
and to set forth Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a). This
rule allows no one to conduct voir dire or the judge conducts
the process without the attorneys. Unfortunately, this is credible
because allowing one person to conduct voir dire does not
suggest impartial jurors. The trends and patterns from literature
illustrate that there is not a system to which to conduct vior dire
that reduce bais. One of the most compelling trends and the
pattern is that attorneys can set up the panel of jurors in favor
of their side if they understand how to use vior dire properly.
William (2015) suggest that lawyers usually use peremptory
stikes which rely on stereotypes and hunches and with little
information judge the appearance or generalize the prospective
juror’s residence, age, and some time on the bases race or
gender. In recent years, it is rare where a panel of a jury is only
male or female, but there is no statue to protect this from
happening. Moreover, Dewitt (2013) makes a great point that
nonetheless, basic strategies are employed to maximize the
chance of success at the trial. More importantly. The voir dire
vary from courtroom to courtroom and case by case, which
suggests there is not a standard across the United States.
Although there rules and regulation, it is hard to determine if
there are effective because there is no consistency across the
courtroom and courthouse. For example, juror 29 is a stealth
juror and listen to vior dire all day and can analyze what the
lawyers are looking for by realizing prospective jurors with
strong feeling and personality are press to admit they cannot be
impartial and unbias. Understanding this and other literature,
the trend demonstrates that some jurors are unable to be

impartial, which will lead to the verdict that is not filled with
integrity but personal satisfaction for the jury.
Mitigating Jurors’ biases is not only based on crime and
environmental and developing influence but race. According to
Ingriselle (2014), the sixth amendment of the United States
guarantees the accused the right to an impartial jury. Moreover,
it is known that black defendants are more likely to be found
guilty than white defendants due to the social identity theory
and can explain such results (Ingriselle, 20145. Many
individuals are not explicitly racist, but identifiers are
disfavoring the criminal justice system process. In comparison,
to determine if theories investigated the claims, Ingriselle
(2015) conduct a mock trial dervied from aversive racism
theory, social identity theory towards procedural justice and
instruction. Identifying the trends and themes through scholar
article suggest that many of the research is consistent with one
another, but have not suggested a plan of action to correct the
issues of impartial and baizes. Forensic science evidence role
has increased, and judge rarely rules the information
inadmissible under the Daubert or Frye standards (3,6,7)
(Thompson, Scurich, 2019). This is important when addressing
the concern of impartial behavior and possible problem and
simulation of the interpretation of the subjective judgment of
juror to admit to exposed potentially biases. Therefore, the
interpretation of the information and procedural justice it is
important to understand the suggested information show that
there is a problem with our process of selecting juries. The
appreciation and the importance of having a far trial are
hypothesized through the effect of evidentiary testing to allow a
better understanding of how to particularly pick an impartial
jury. For better or worse, a jury will usually or likely decide on
the outcome of a trial before the evidence is presented.
Study Methodologies and Populations
According to Crocker and Kovera (2009), The voir dire
must be rehabilitated in order to have an impartial attempt to
eliminate all evidence of bias and reveal the integrity of all

court cases. A social psychological perspective on juror
rehabilitation framework explores whether biased jurors can be
rehabilitated. Crocker and Kovera (2009) conducted an
experiment designed to empirically test the legal assumption of
rehabilitative questioning during vior dire to eliminate bias and
impartial claims. There was 124 juries eligible community
member in the New York City area. The participants were
selected from a pull of volunteers via advertisements on
craigslist, which paid $25 for participation. Seventy-two
participants were male, and 52 were male, leading to 44%
white, known-Hispanic, 34% African American, 12% Hispanic
(Crocker and Kovera, 2009). The participants were categorized
for bias using bias screening questions and the vior dire
questionnaire. The judge addressed standard vior dire to all
mock jurors in regards to television shows they watch to the
news source they listen to. Finally, a one-hour trial video but
the verdict was not given to the participants in order to give all
participants a verdict questionnaire to choose from two verdict
guilty and not guilty. It was concluded that 78 percent of jurors
were bais with their answer do to life experiences. This was
concluded based on an interview with each participant before
the experiment was conducted to avoid any influences of the
results. More importantly, the judge who help with the
experiment gain a better understanding of psychological IDA-R
and the scientific method. Therefore, juror bias was uncovered
during the vior dire process and can be difficult because of
compliance and social influence. All need to have a fair trial,
but the research and evidence suggest that it is impossible to
have a jury pool of all impartial jury. Thus, consistency within
the criminal justice system mechanism must improve in order to
reduce this issue within having a fair trial.
Supporting Research Design and Topic Relevance
The perceptions of jury selection in psychological literature
focus on impartial bias during a trial in the courtroom. There
are empirical studies which demonstrated the mechanism of
counsel using the vior dire process to gain the advantage during

a trial. Due to this, it is important to understand the literature
review of the jury selection process to improve the selection
theory of juries. More specifically, can personality inventories
(Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s verdict?
According to Gardner, Titcomb, Cramer, Stroud, and Bate
(2013) refer to perceiver personality as an individual difference
in tendencies to view other interpersonal perceptions across
situations. In other words, perceived personality has an
interpersonal perception and to understand how attitudes and
judgment affect jurors selections. This is relevant to psychology
and science due to the advancement of the court system and the
crimes being committed or being accused of committing.
According to Levett and Kovera (2010), potential jurors are
questioned about their attitudes during trials after an
adjudication examine is conducted to see any potential bias.
This can be difficult because it is unknown how the jurors will
be sway depending on the evidence. According to Rose (2008),
it is important for jurors to only focus on the evidence and not
the emotion, but a self-assessment of juror’s displayed biased
during the first ten minutes of the trial. In contrast, the juror
has to be able to separate personal and social desirability that
can influence decision In contrast, the design of the vior dire
does not provide or convey often social norms due to
environmental difference during development. The presumption
of equal competence is essential, but as Schwartzbery (2008)
suggest that juries systematically empaneled information to
become implausible because of the liability and judge’s
instructions during vior dire process.
In contrast, Greene and Dougherty (2013), recommends a
review of the sixth
Amendment due to an impartial judgment that is to be tried by
an impartial jury. If one person on the panel is impartial, a new
jury shall be created. The downside to this is how do you prove
bias in the courtroom after the jury is chosen. We are entrusting
12 citizens to make an educated decision based on the evidence
present in the courtroom. Is a degree of education need for a

juror? No, the fact is anyone who is not a felony can be chosen
for the duties. Also, the fact is that personality is a factor in
problem-solving and the way or direction we receive or perceive
the information being present. It is in common to understand
common information, but when a case uses terms that are not
common to jurors, their understanding of the information is
limited and suggestive.
According to Greene and Dougherty (2013), personality is the
key to understanding an individual mindset and reasoning skills
that are in conjunction with critical skills. The progress to
understanding personality in relations to juror selection can
measure personality influence during emotional motivation
conception to suggesting personality is the root cause and root
consideration of our basic reasoning decision. Because of
understanding if personality modalities affect juries before a
trial can allow us to develop a system that is not impartial and
bias during a trial if understanding the effect of pre-trail voir
dire. The integrity of the venirperson is important, and a factor
which influences their behavior must be noted, and proper
research must be completed to challenge and impartial viewing.
The theme of impartial and bais has permitted trial evidence
before jury selection to promote explanation of bias (Kerr and
Jung, 2018). So, it is key to develop research that investigates
can personality inventories (Juries suggestibility theory)
determine a jury’s verdict?
Conclusion
It is important to understand the criminal justice system over
the years have bee able to finally see how important
psychological approaches are when dealing with many legal
cases in courts. The perceptions of jury selection in
psychological literature focus on impartial bias during a trial in
the courtroom. There are empirical studies which demonstrated
the mechanism of counsel using the vior dire process to gain an
advantage during a trial. Moreover, Dewitt (2013) makes a great
point that nonetheless, basic strategies are employed to
maximize the chance of success at the trial. More importantly.

The voir dire vary from courtroom to courtroom and case by
case, which suggests there is not a standard across the United
States. The research presented would standardize the process for
all states and to make sure the biases are not on the jury pool.
Therefore the research that will be conducted will further the
criminal justice system and allow a better understanding of
personality and verdict decisions.
References
Cooper, A., Quas, J. A., & Cleveland, K. C. (2014). The
Emotional Child Witness: Effects on
Juror Decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6),
813–828. https://doi-
org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.2153
Caroline B. Crocker, & Margaret Bull Kovera. (2010). The
Effects of Rehabilitative Voir Dire
on Juror Bias and Decision Making. Law and Human Behavior,
34(3), 212. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsj
sr.40785177&site=eds-live&scope=site

Chernoff, N. W., & Kadane, J. B. (2012). Preempting Jury
Challenges:
Strategies For Courts And Jury System Administrators*. Justice
System Journal, 33(1), 47-67. Retrieved from https://search-
proquest-com.proxy-
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1021398035?accountid=393
64
Eigenberg, H., Mcguffee, K., Iles, G. D., & Garland, T. S.
(2012). Doing justice: Perceptions of
gender neutrality in the jury selection process. American
Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 37(2), 258-275.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s12103-011-9139-x
Ellison, K. F. (2013). Getting out of the Funk: How Wisconsin
Courts Can Protect against the
Threat to Impartial Jury Trials. Marquette Law Review, 96(3),
953–992. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=88174
432&site=eds-live&scope=site
Estrada, R. V. C., Gray, J. M., & Nuñez, N. (2015). Information
Integration Theory, Juror Bias,
and Sentence Recommendations Captured Over Time in a
Capital Trial. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 713–722.
https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/acp.3155
Gunnell, J. J., & Ceci, S. J. (2010). When emotionality trumps
reason: A study of individual
processing style and juror bias. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
28(6), 850–877. https://doi-org.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.939
Hafemeister, T. L. (2000). Supreme court examines impact of
errors in detecting bias during jury
selection. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 209-24. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.proxy-
4

Morrison, C. M. (2014). Negotiating Peremptory Challenges.
Journal of Criminal
Law & Criminology, 104(1), 1-58. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.proxy-
64
Ingriselli, E. (2015). Mitigating Jurors’ Racial Biases: The
Effects of Content and Timing of Jury
Instructions. Yale Law Journal, 124(5), 1690–1745. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
Kerr, N. L., & Jiin Jung. (2018). Should Jurors Be Allowed to
Discuss Trial Evidence Before
Deliberation?: New Research Evidence. Law & Human Behavior
(American Psychological Association), 42(5), 413. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=13243
O’Brien, B., Grosso, C. M., & Taylor, A. P. (2017). Examining
Jurors: Applying Conversation
Analysis to Voir Dire in Capital Cases, a First Look. Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 107(4), 687. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=12593
Otis, C. C., Greathouse, S. M., Kennard, J. B., & Kovera, M. B.
(2014). Hypothesis testing in
attorney-conducted voir dire. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4),
392–404. https://doi-org.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/10.1037/lhb0000092
Ritter, S. (2014). Beyond the Verdict: Why Courts Must Protect
Jurors from the Public Before,
During, and After High-Profile Cases. Indiana Law Journal,
89(2), 911–940. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-

Rose, M. R., & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Judging bias: Juror
confidence and judicial rulings on
challenges for cause. Law & Society Review, 42(3), 513-549.
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy
4
Schwartzberg, M. (2018). Justifying the jury: Reconciling
justice, equality, and democracy. The
American Political Science Review, 112(3), 446-458.
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1017/S0003055417000661
Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Race-based judgments,
race-neutral justifications:
Experimental examination of peremptory use and the batson
challenge procedure. Law
and Human Behavior, 31(3), 261-73.
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1007/s10979-006-9048-6
Whitley, R., & Crawford, M. (2005). Qualitative research in
psychiatry. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 50(2), 108-14. Retrieved from https://search-
proquest-com.proxy
4
Shuman, D. W., Stokes, L., & Martinez, G. (2011). Stranger at
the Gate: The Effect of the
Plaintiff’s use of an Interpreter on Juror Decision-Making.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 499–512. https://doi-
org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1002/bsl.985
Williams, C. J. (2015). To Tell You the Truth, Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 24(A) Should
Be Amended to Permit Attorneys to Conduct Voir Dire of
Prospective Jurors. South Carolina Law Review, 67(1), 35–71.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
Running head: JUROR SUGGESTIBILITY 1
JUROR SUGGESTIBILITY 24
Juror Suggestibility Verdict
Matthew M. Rosario
University of the Rockies
Juror Suggestibility Verdict
Problem Statement
There are many general conclusions on jury selection and the
examination of information based on gender and individual

biases due to developmental and environmental influences.
There is very little research that examines the effect of
personality inventories determination on juries’ selection. The
perceptions of jury selection are based on the process of “Vior
Dire” which gives the opportunity for lawyers to ask a question
to the jury pool and dismiss the jury for cause if the lawyer
feels that jury can hurt their case. Also, according to Eigenbery,
McGuffe, Iles, and Garland (2011) during the process of vior
dire counsel can excuse jurors in two manners which the council
can remove for a cause which requires proof of potential jurors
view are bias or challenge for cause which need no reason.
While the judge has the right to deny counsel the right to
remove for cause if the argument is not substantially the
counsel can go around the judge and use one of their
peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are not unlimited
and are different from state to state. There have been some
empirical studies which demonstrate the mechanism of counsel
using these techniques in order to deny some group the right to
serve on juries (Eigenbery et al., 2011). In selecting jurors, the
process can be impartial to empaneled juries to reduce
discrimination and biases within the court process. Potential
jurors without reason can relate the court trial and information
being delivered to past experiences and intuitions to assist them
in their decision-making process which can allow a
psychological perspective or lean towards a psychological
approach during jury selection to benefit a counsel or client.
Surprisingly there is not much research on personality
inventories about jury selection. In other words, the criminal
justice systems have been using the same methods to select
juries which can reduce biases and ensure a fair trial. What if
counsel uses forensic psychologist who understands behavior
about the personality and the effects of information or how
information will be perceived based on an individual’s
personality type during pre-trial selections. Some would argue
whether or not this is ethical because counsel and psychologist
could manipulate the jury pool to have a more favorable jury on

their position. We already do this during the vior dire process
during jury selection, all this is adding is an element of the
psychological profile within juries to reduce biases and allow a
counsel a better opportunity to win their cause. The downfall to
this is there both counsels from each position has the
opportunity to challenge for cause or use a peremptory
challenge, which gives each counsel the opportunity to have
their specific type of jurors they are looking for. Enhancing
psychological within the criminal justice preceding will
traditionally have jury service become more effective for both
positions. According to Eigenbery et al. (2011) historically
very little social science research has examined the process of
jury selection and the influences of jury selection based on
counsels position. Due to this, it is important to understand the
literature review of the jury selection process to improve the
selection theory of juries. More specifically, can personality
inventories (Juries suggestibility theory) determine a jury’s
verdict based on individual suggestibility and personality type?
The purpose of this exploratory study is to address and
determine whether or not jurors perceive information based on
their suggestibility type (emotional or physical) or personality
type (Myers-Byers Personality Test) based on gender role
identity. During the process of jury selection, there was little to
no research conducted on this topic. In order to understand the
criminal justice system in relations to jury process and mata-
analysis of the literature review was conducted on the common
issue with jury selection such as biases, discrimination, and
race-related issues with minorities and majorities. Finally, this
study will address antagonistic attitudes towards forensic
psychologist being used in the criminal justice system to advise
counsel on jury selection strategies through mock trial and
physical and emotional profiling of the information in each case
being provided
Research Question
How does a juror's suggestibility state (Emotional or Physical)
affect their verdict during a murder trial?

Literature Review
The criminal defendant to trial by an impartial jury is a
part of the U.S. Constitution which entitles all rights. According
to Rose (2008) during jury selection questioning (voir dire),
trial judges are required to evaluate each juror on whether or
not they can evaluate evidence and can make a decision with an
open mind. This can be difficult because there has been
evidence presented that prior beliefs and experience influence
perceptions. The diversity of background is interchangeable
depending on demographic and factors such as personal strength
and ability to stay open. In contrast, this is not always the case
due to attitudes and beliefs which are formed in the unconscious
mind leading to unacceptable bias (Rose, 2008).
In many cases judge are obligate to excuse the prospective juror
because of biases because of this, it is hard to say if a judge is
trained to see this behavior. Also, judges ask jurors to report
their assessment of their ability to stand a fair trial (Rose,
2008). Giving the ability to honest assessment early on can be
beneficial, but it is hard to know whether or not a jury will have
an honest self-assessment on their ability to stand a fair trial.
Many individuals with biases are not always honest with
themselves because of the environment they were raised and
developed in. There has been much empirical literature which
addresses the stages of jury selection and the attorney choice to
remove jurors or keep jurors for the trial. To determine vior dire
and self-assessment of fairness during selection procedures if
juror’s background or attitudes raise any flags or relevant life
experiences are associated with past crimes they will b,e
removed from jury duty(Rose, 2008). The issue with this is that
one of the contributing factors within the assessment stage is
the juror’s report about their characteristics. Even with having
some background from the juror is the only individuals who
make these assessments on their behavior are judges and
lawyers during voir dire.
There is no professional such as a forensic psychologist or
clinical psychologist recommending the juror behavior or

possible lack of opened mindfulness the case. It is the duty of
the juror only to focus on the evidence, but it has been proven
that being open minded can be hard for the average person
because of associations within the world (Rose, 2008). Another
part to this is the credibility of juror’s self-assessment and the
judge coming with a conclusion on if the juror is being not
modest about their capabilities nor claiming bias. The judge
usually asked many follow up questions in order to feel
conformable with the juror (Rose, 2008). A different type of
credibility assessment is conduct with a juror who says they can
be fair to determine if they are lying and will be impartial to the
case. More specifically, many of this assessment are detailed
with the possibility of using behavioral science to understand
how to choose an unbiased juror properly. According to Rose
(2008), voir dire provides several reasons to be concerned about
the quality of juror claiming fairness because it relies on a self-
assessment report of the jurors past and influential factors
which can be unknown if the juror decides not to provide.
In contrast, the design of voir dire provides question often
convey social desirability which may influence how the juror
may answer the question (Rose, 2008). Therefore, the
confidence and perceived juror competence suggest that even
though judges have the discretion to overrule the juror’s self-
assessment. Rose (2005) reported that 13 felony trials
prospective juror who stated they would be fair was dismissed
for cause, in contrast, 14 jurors in a death penalty trial found
that the judge’s questions led them to express greater openness
to applying the death penalty than their initial answers.
Therefore, it can be concluded that judges can influence bias if
the question leads to the factor lead to a suggestible state of
agreeableness with the judging perspective.
The presumption of equal competence constitutes essential
to serving as a juror. The capability of incompetence to
presumed to be equal and the scoop of applicability for all
jurors (Schwartzberg, 2018). The competence of judgment is
part of a secured designed to enable juror to understand

testimony and participate in deliberations but no means to have
them be expert in the field or case being held. Moreover, juries
must be able to follow the judge’s instructions and are deemed
competent, though analyzing conflicting testimony but will
surely vary depending on each case. Unfortunately, the liability
of the presumptions of equal competences is implausible
because equal competences cannot be proven and are subjective
based on the information being interrupted by the jurors
receiving the information. According to Schwartzberg (2008), it
was believed that juries systematically empaneled the
incompetent and rendered just verdicts by jurors are not just
verdict because all competencies are equal and all verdicts
should be held by judges or some alternative institution to
replace them who are competent in the field of law.
In contrast, the Supreme Court examines the impact of errors in
detecting bias during jury selection and the presentation of
evidence in a jury trial.
Additionally, the social scientists have questioned the value of
peremptory challenges because of the weak predictor of furor
verdict preferences (Hafemeister, 2000). The verdict
preferences are based on gender or ethnicity during voir dire
which typically is argued that verdicts are undemocratic and
sometimes inherently irrational based on abuse of jurors
inappropriately biases attitudes or beliefs. In comparison,
Hafemeister (2000), mentions that some jurisdictions are
struggling to get sufficient numbers of the citizen to come to
duty which worries the judge of dismissals of prospective jurors
which can reverse a verdict on appeal if the judge’s do not
properly dismiss prospective jurors. Understanding the process
of juror selection about behavior can allow lawyers and judges
to understand the possible outcome of a cause depending on the
juror’s experiences and personality.
Judging bias in juror confidence can be challenging because of
the lack of knowledge judges, and attorneys have on the jury
pool. Rose (2008) investigated appellate cases through court
observations studying the operationalization of problematic

jurors in two studies. Both studies relied on the perspective of
prosecutors and defense attorneys (Study 1) and judges (Study
2) to assess their ability to notice juror bias. Study 1 evaluated
prosecutors and defense attorneys in urban regions and study to
focusing on judges in different states (Rose, 2008). 282
questionnaires were distributed to a public defender and 297
prosecutors in the large urban county to maximize and measure
the difference in response between both samples. The
questionnaires were returned by their supervisor and returned to
the collection state. Out of the 282 public defenders only 80
responded as well as only 107 out of 297 defense attorney
(Rose, 2008). One person was omitted due to not having trail
experience (Rose, 2008). Due to the population sample, the data
was substantial using control vignettes and equivocal
assessment to see if the participants could be fair. The
methodology was used to measure the samples ability to
identify and well-using voir dire assessment of fairness
properly. Furthermore, the control vignettes checked to see in
participants were the ability to measure bias in particular cases
which emotions and experiences can affect a jury bias.
The effect of rehabilitative voir dire during decision
making of juror eliminate venirepersons not meeting
requirements. In order to rehabilitate having the understanding
of social psychological perspective leading to bias on jurors.
Crocker and Kovera (2010) investigated the legal assumption of
vetting during voir dire using questions to indicate bias. It also
evaluated the rehabilitate question during the voir dire process
to see if it would reduce bias on verdict judgments. Experiment
1 focused on the questioning used and to see if jurors were able
to ignore their knowledge or opinions about the cases presented.
124 eligible participants were measured by suitability and
member of the New York area. Member was selected using an
aid listed in Craiglist and was paid for their participation with
25 dollars. 72 were females, and 52 were males sampling with
racial diversity (Corocker and Kovera, 2010). Crocker and
Kovera (2010) noted that that factorial design of

unbiased/biased condition would have a positive effect on the
real world outside the courtroom. The methodology used was
voir dire questions standard vs. rehabilitative factor assessing
altered decision-making questionnaire favorably of defense
irrespective of juror bias (Crocker and Kovera, 2010). The
questionnaire intensively measures juror bias of the insanity
defense leading to the categorized bias for or against insanity
defense based on participant background. Furthermore, the
categorized biased allowed the conceive of the responsibility of
criminal action and pre-existing juror experiences.
Attempting to debias jury judgment can be a challenge
because of the responsibility and consequences of negligent
evaluations in the legal system in regards to jury selection and
limitation of a qualified and unqualified juror in the United
States. According to Smith and Greene (2005) evaluated the
effectiveness of eliminating hindsight biases and suppressing
evidence means of trial bifurcation. Smith and Greene (2005)
investigated negligence case in the perspective of bias jurors by
reacting the case. The participants applied to a local newspaper
announcement and were 355 jury-eligible adults were accepted.
There were four conditions used with the primary manipulating
evidence and jury instruction. The methodology behind the
investigation was designed to evaluate jury bias with
manipulated evidence using questionnaires after the participants
view the mock trial (Smith and Green 2005). To measure the
methodology, six questions were asked in regards to negligent
for all four conditions and the manipulated evidence given to
suggest juror bias in multiple event experiences. Moreover, the
bifurcated conditions controlled the consist conditions and
question by allowing only 6-10 participant at a time. Therefore
measuring groupthink and personality liable of jurors (Smith
and Green, 2005).
Generalizations can merely contribute to stereotypes in a
link demographic and personality variable (Ream, 2009). Ream
(2009) conducted a meta-analysis of several researchers to
focus on the sixth amendment right. Many researchers

concluded that juror background demographic information and
education and personality could influence a juror verdict. Ream
(2009) investigated the effects of juror background and
demographic history factor of bias verdict by jurors. Ream
(2009) reenacted murder trial for a sample of 828 citizens from
Massachusetts jury pools. Using the predictive power of
background characteristic found associated bias within the
demographic history which affected their verdict. By using a
sample size of 828, the methodology of using questionnaires
demonstrated inconsistent results. Therefore, the methodology
used in a large sample appeared verdicts of inconsistent because
of predicted background characteristics, and personality traits
of jurors (Ream, 2009).
Research Methodology
The research methodology that will be used to answer the
research question is qualitative. The qualitative methodology
allows the use of serval research and paradigm methods which
will benefit the collection and interpretation of
nonmathematical data (Whitley and Crawford, 2005). The
methodology is comprised of three methods of in-depth
interview, focused groups, and participant observation. Also,
qualitative method documents the complexity and multiplicity
of experience from the participant which are rarely known in
other methodologies. Understanding the point of view of the
participant during this study will allow us also to modify the
mock trial. According to Whitley and Crawford (2005), the
design and process of qualitative methods are to differ from the
analogs procedure in quantitative research. Moreover, the
orientation of the methodology will investigate the applicability
of a juror suggestibility state (Emotional or Physical) affecting
their verdict during a murder trial.
This methodology is appropriate because it will support the
development of a formulation of an immutable design, data
collection, and data analysis. Also, qualitative methodology is
more flexible and iterative with design and data analysis. The
methods of inquiry within this methodology encompass the

isolation and conjunction with an in-depth interview, and
participant observation within the modify mock trial that will be
conducted to analyze the study. Furthermore, the related issues
of sample size are needed for some validity nonetheless
regarding the justification for the sample sizes needed which
will allow future research to further understanding and
investigate the study. According to (Whitley and Crawford
(2005), the rules of the practice of qualitative research is to
include the appropriate checks on validity and reliability to
have a benchmark of equivalent and significant tests. In other
words, validity and reliability are important during any
qualitative methodology to control the integrity and honesty of
the study. Therefore qualitative methodology is the appropriate
method for this study.
Participant Selection
At this time the site of the data collection is unknown until the
research proposal is approved. The site will be very important
because the setting must be controlled without any disturbance.
Once the proposal has approved a request will be sent to the
University of Hawaii to see if we will be able to rent or use a
classroom to conduct the study, since we will be off the campus
of the University of the Rockies. The classroom should be set
up with a computer or television and should be able to fill up to
12 participants at a time. Before the start of the study, we must
first get informed consent and have the participants signed a
non-disclosure agreement until the study is completed to
maintain its integrity. In order to get informed consent from the
participants, we will draft an informed consent form with full
disclosure and nature of the research and have the participants
understand that this is a volunteer and that they can quit at any
time. (sample informed consent form)
The participants in this research will be selected from a
pool of students in graduate-level courses specifically the
University of Hawaii or nearest University available. Prior

approval must be granted by the university as some of their
resources will be needed to conduct the study. Theoretical
sampling will be used to select the participant for the study.
Theoretical sampling is used in order to deliberately recruit
induvial with requisite demographic and characteristics
allowing the study to be grounded in the context being studied
(Whitley and Crawford, 2005). The number of participants will
be 108 students taking a graduate-level course that has never
had jury duty. During the screening process, all participants
will be screened for biases by using the vior dire questionnaire
developed in Ijury Application. All questions will be composed
of three lawyers’ beforehand and suggested answers leading to
the implication of biases for phase 1and inputted in the Ijury
application before being the study. Due to the modify mock
trial, all participants will be aware that this study will be held
in three sessions. Phase 1: Vior Dire process, phase 2:
Suggestibility test: Phase 3 Mock trial. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will
be conducted on the same day. After phase 1 any participant
who has been noted as having biases implications for the trial
will be removed before the start of phase 2. All participants will
be notified after phase 1 if they have been selected to continue
onto phase 2. The Ijury Application will start with the following
questions but are not all inclusive until we interview with three
lawyers’ on specific of the mock trial and what question should
be asked to reduce biases juries. Listed below are some sample
questions from Sample Voir Dire subjects covered by Judge
Susan Oki Mollway (2015) in Civil Trials.
1. Does anyone have a medical reason or personal hardship that
would make it difficult to serve as a juror in this case?
2. Does anyone have difficulty reading, hearing, or
understanding the English language?
3. Does anyone know or has anyone dealt with the plaintiffs, the
defendants, or their attorneys? If yes, please identify the person
you know or have dealt with, the nature of your relationship,
and whether that relationship would hinder or affect your ability
to give a fair trial to all of the parties in this case.

4. Is anyone here a lawyer, married to a lawyer or in a
substantial relationship with a lawyer? Has anyone here studied
law or worked in a law office? Notwithstanding what you feel
the law is or should be on a particular subject, will you apply
the law as I give it to you at the end of this case?
5. Does anyone here, because of the nature of your employment,
feel that you may not be able to judge this case impartially?
During phase 2 of the study, we will evaluate the participant’s
suggestibility by using a suggestibility test in order to
determine whether or not the participant is emotional or
physical. All participants will take questionnaire 1 and 2 and
turn them into the researchers for grading. We will be using the
Emotional and Physical Suggestibility questionnaire 1 and 2.
The Emotional and Physical Suggestibility will start with the
following questions but are not all-inclusive. The Suggestibility
Questionnaire 1 and 2 was created by Dr. Knapp from HMI
Nationally Accredited School of Hypnotherapy in order to help
treat client depending on their suggestibility state. Listed below
are some sample questions from the suggestibility questionnaire
1 and 2.
1. Have you ever walked in your sleep during your adult life?
2. As a teenager, did you feel comfortable expressing your
feeling to one or both of your parents?
3. Do you tend to look directly into a person’s eyes and more
close to them when discussing an interesting subject?
4. Do you feel the most people, when you first meet them, are
uncritical of your appearance?
5. Do you feel comfortable holding hands or hugging someone
you are in a relationship with in front of other people?
Participants will not be notified of their suggestibility to
maintain the integrity of the study. There is a chance that
participant can score a 50/50 on the suggestibility test. If any
participant scores a 50/50 on the suggestibility, the participant
will be dismissed. A score of 50/50 means that the participant is
in intellectual and our current study is not evaluating an
intellectual suggestibility verdict. During the selection process,

we will select 54 physical and 54 emotional suggestibility
participants to participate in the study. The participants will not
be notified of their suggestibility until the study is concluded.
More important each participant will be separated into groups of
12 participants resulting in 6 emotional and 6 physical. The
group members will not know who they are until the start of
phase 3 mock trial which will start on the morning of day 2.
During phase 3, we will have 9 groups of 12 who will watch a
trial being conducted via television which all would have been
screened during phase 1 to determine if they have any
background or information on the trial. It is understood that all
108 participants may not be selected in one time. It is
encouraging moving forward if you have at least 12 participants
for phase 3. Currently, phase 3 is still being developed as far as
choosing the trial video being used. One of the participants
views the trial all will be asked to make a confidential verdict
one at a time using the Ijury verdict Application. We are doing
this in order to reduce any influences from another participant
after each participant induvial make their verdict we will allow
the jurors to deliberate to give the final verdict. One this is
completed we will interview with each member of the jury to
determine how they come up with their verdict.
Data Collection
To collect the data for the study, we will use interviews,
observations, and documentation from the participants. During
phase 3 the participant will be viewing a trial via video. During
that time they will be videoed taped in order to observe their
body language during the trail. During the trial, we will be
focusing on body language in order to analyze whether or not
the participant agrees or disagree with the information being
provided as well as nervousness. Body language such as leg
movement up and down motion, biting of nails, and facial
movement demonstrating agree or disagreeing with the
information being presented. We will also focus on making sure
the participants are not talking to each other. We will collect all
verdicts from the participant before deliberation to analysis

their verdict before the interview phase to determine if they
changed their verdicts based on other jurors influences. The in-
depth interview will take most of the time throughout the day as
we will be able to observe the participant behavior later.
Interviews can establish and generate more insightful responses
and allows follow-up question to probe additional information.
It allows us to identify highly valuable findings throughout the
study that would not have been normal known. This will allow
us to confirm our finding in relations to suggestibility within
court verdicts. During the interview process, the interviewers
will be allowed to answer a follow-up question if they feel more
explanation is needed. In no way should the interviewer deviate
from the interview sheet. Allowing us to interview the
participant will give us the opportunity to tailor specific
question for physical and emotional suggestibility. Some sample
question we would ask is:
1. How did you enjoy the trial?
2. What influenced your decisions?
3. Why did you change your verdict after deliberation? If
applicable.
4. Did your emotions play into your decision making?
5. What was the hardest part of the trial?
6. What lead you to your decision?
Data Analysis
After the data is collected, it must be transcribed to textual
using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software
(CAQDAS). Using this software will effectively transcribe
faster than trying to manually. After transcribing the data, there
will be a large amount of information which will need to be

organized before coding the data. Coding the data into the
understandable concept is more efficient for the data analysis
process. We will do this by categorizing the data into concepts,
properties, and patterns. This will give us meaning to the
collected data. We will use two type of coding descriptive and
pattern coding which reference the central theme of the data and
build on the theme to have a greater insight into the data being
used. Validate data is an important pillar, and the validity and
reliability will go through validation to make sure that there are
no flaws.
Methods of Achieving Validity
To understand the validity of any research the internal,
construct, and external validity must be understood early on.
The internal validity applies to understanding the relationship
between two variable and the inferences of the data being
collected. Construct validity is related to operationalizing the
process and claiming the inferences is accurate in a theoretical
constructs. Lastly, external validity focuses on the conclusion
and the generalization of the population. It is important to
achieve and ensure validity for all research methodologies and
results. In order to ensure validity it is beneficial to choose
well-trained moderator who are skilled to check for personal
bias and expectations early on to avoid any problem with bias
towards to methodology and results. This will reduce errors
early on which would affect the results in a positive or negative
way. The moderator must be interested in learning from the
research participant by being engaged and giving honest
feedback necessary for the validity of the results which are
neutral and candid. To ensure this we must make sure all
moderator are not influencing the answer and make sure all
answers are genuine. From a practical application all moderator
will disclose all of their biases and perspective beforehand and
report it in the data will full disclosure. Outside of the
moderator it is key to have the sample group that is recruited
and segmented early on during the study to reduce basis
influence from the sampling group. Also ethical recruiting is

important in qualitative research because the sampling
population should not be represented based …
Running head: CONTEMPORARY THEMES 1
CONTEMPORARY THEMES 7
Contemporary Themes in Forensic Psychology
Matthew M. Rosario
University of the Rockies
Abstract
Combining the contemporary theme of law and psychology in
practical and professional literature allowed practitioner in the
field to gain information to advance the understanding of
behavioral analysis and mental illness in criminals. Criminology
and psychology have become the practitioner of understanding
the relationship between behavior and law. It can be speculated
through the themes and topic engaged in the community of

forensic psychology. Reconceptualizing the understanding of
psychology and law through the notion of victim and offender
can allow a preplanned response before a crime has happened.
In other words, the social and legal gap derives from a system
which only sees the position of the crime and ignores the
psychological differences within the crime. This paper will
give in insights on my final paper and the development of some
forensic psychology topic and theories.
Contemporary Themes in Forensic Psychology
Forensic Psychology is a new and developing academic
and professional career that has become one of the leading
professions in today society. Combining the contemporary
theme of law and psychology in practical and professional
literature allowed practitioner in the field to gain information to
advance the understanding of behavioral analysis and mental
illness in criminals. Identifying some contemporary themes and
topic prepared in recent research which contributed to the study
of the field of forensic psychology are sociopathic behavior and
narcissistic personality disorder. The development of these
psychological disorders are just not related to crime, but the
first response to prevent crimes of individuals with mental
illness. Understanding not just the behavior, but the biology
behind the behavior and applying it to the understanding of the
law in the criminal justice systems leads to the profound social
and legal gap between mentally ill individuals. In other words,
the social and legal gap derives from a system which only sees
the position of the crime and ignores the psychological

differences within the crime. Being able to minimize the gap
between both legal and psychology allows the development and
knowledge of the psychological makeup between two individual
who has different biological makers and environmental
influence to support or persuade an action of a crime to be
committed though possible manipulation.
Sociopathic behavior has a relationship with evolutionary
growth and design of the brain. Individuals’ essential feature
refers to individuals with anti-social personality disorder in
sociopathic behaviors having no regards for other peoples rights
(Mohl, 2013). The focus of sociopathic behavior manifested in
the violations of others rights by displaying forms of disrespect
and no acknowledgment of their unlawful behaviors (Mohl,
2013). Some signs of sociopathic behaviors are aggressive
activates, lying, evasion, and repeated theft (Mohl, 2013). This
is not always the case and does not mean that every person who
communicates these crimes are classified as sociopaths. The
information can sometimes be confusing, but other factors play
into the behavior such as being impulsive, recklessness and
displaying anti-social personality disorder. Some signs of anti-
social personality disorder are lack of fidelity, loyalty and the
inability to develop an interpersonal relationship with other.
There is a tendency to focus just on the behavioral profile of the
sociopathic concepts, but other influences have to consider such
as the socialization and etiology of genetic and environmental
influences (Mohl, 2013). Moreover, the interactions within the
integrated complexities of social stability and social network
influences and modifies the consistency of young adults risk for
committing crimes early on. This is troubling because according
to Mohl (2013), individuals cannot be classified as sociopaths
until the age of 18 which brings the question what facet early on
can identify sociopathic behavior.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the social network
between the socialization process expressed in various degree of
severity (Ohk, Joo, Park, Yang, 2017). It is conceptualized as
the exaggerated perception of oneself which can cause abnormal

behaviors in social relations (Ohk et al., 2017). The abnormal
behavior derived from receiving positive feedback during social
events which can lead to aggressive behavior to others judgment
and feedback. In recent years Ohk et al., (2017) researched the
effects of social media which resulted in the founding of people
with more than 5,000 falls under having a narcissistic
personality by allowing social media to disrupt their life. The
conceptual understanding of a Narcissistic behavior can be a
contributing factor the criminal activity in order to adhere or
influence other perception of their self. Examining the
information of social behavior allows the internal repression of
anger caused by sensitivity expressed and formed based on self-
expression and feeling important. Therefore, the ability to have
recognition is significant for a narcissist to process there
importance and relevancy in a social setting or even in a
criminal setting. Being accepted and liked can influence one’s
ability to take the necessary action to receive the positive
judgment from others.
Criminology and psychology have become the practitioner
of understanding the relationship between behavior and law. It
can be speculated through the themes and topic engaged in the
community of forensic psychology. Reconceptualizing the
understanding of psychology and law through the notion of
victim and offender can allow a preplanned response before a
crime has happened. According to Venales, Hall, Patrick (2014),
anti-social behavior can lead to homicides through serial
crimes. More specifically, criminological theory and recurring
condition of the behavior of crime can lead to serial crimes and
murders. The ideological concept of crime and psychology
allows the study of forensic psychology and how the law can
contribute or harm in rehabilitating mental ill individuals. The
themes of behavior in direct correlation with sociopath and
narcissist behavior allow the practitioner to research and
investigate crimes and the position of the court in solving and
rehabilitating these individuals. In addition, the practitioner is
engaged in these topics because according to Venales et al.,

(2014) states that 90 percent of our prisons are filled with
people who have the psychopathic trait and are psychopaths.
There it is speculated in order to reduce personnel in prisons we
must first understand how criminals think and what led to the
action of the law created to keep good order and discipline. The
answer cannot always be to separate them from society but to
create treatment and have an understanding of the disorder.
There are many contemporary challenges that confront
practitioners in the field of forensic psychology. Some
challenges practitioners will have will be the written letter of
the law. In other words, in recent years Lubaszka and Shon
(2013) state the most difficult part of a trail is proving a theory
in law when the fact is only allowed. Speculating is not
allowed, and theory must be proven by science. This can be
difficult because many psychological theories are a concept in
development that may not have a lot of support factor at the
time because of science is always evolving. In order to improve
the service to clients or advance the understanding of
practitioners in the field, there should be a law created to
protect and govern the information a psychology professional
put out in a courtroom. For example, the Rule of Evidence 702
guidelines helps psychology professional understand the rules
of evidence in regards to information allowed and not allowed
in court. As a scholar-practitioner, it would be good to know
how to become a certified expert witness and having
information that explains step by step. One of the issues being
faced is after obtaining the degree what else is need to be
classified as an expert witness. Having more resources at the
graduate level showing the steps need to become a forensic
psychologist and expert witness would be beneficial. Even
reaching out the many professors it is still unclear on the step to
take.
The topic that I would like to pursue in this class is to
investigate further the assessments used to classify the
understanding of criminal intent in psychopathic and
sociopathic facets in the criminal justice system. I have been

working on this research topic for over 4 years now, and I
would like to come up with better ideas and to investigate
further on the determining factors of going on trial with crimes
psychopathic and sociopathic individual commit. In the same on
how we charge children under seven with murder but cannot
classify them as psychopathic and sociopathic until the age of
18. I understand that these are two topics, but I am really
interested in understanding how the court system found a
verdict of guilty for people with these facets.
References
Lubaszka, C. K., & Shon, P. C. (2013). Reconceptualizing the
notion of victim selection, risk,
and offender behavior in healthcare serial murders. Journal
of Criminal Psychology, 3(1),
65-78.doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1108/20093821311307776
Mohl, A. S. (2013). Sociopathic behavior and its relationship to
psychohistory. The Journal of
Psychohistory, 41(1), 2-13. Retrieved from https://search-
proquest-com.proxy-
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/docview/1412594700?accountid
=39364
Ohk, K., Joo, S., Park, K., & Yang, H. K. (2017). The effect of
NPD on social network formation
and information sharing behavior 1. International
Information Institute
(Tokyo).Information, 20(8), 6055-6062. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-
com.proxy-
64

Venables, N. C., Hall, J. R., & Patrick, C. J. (2014).
Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial
personality disorder: A triarchic model perspective.
Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1005-
13. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-
campuslibrary.rockies.edu/10.1017/S003329171300161X
1
ADP Project Justification Template (PJT)
Student name: Matthew Rosario
Program: Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.)Specialization:
Criminology and Justice Studies
Working title: Dual Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Abuse in War Veterans: An
Analysis of Treatment Options and the Factors Affecting their
Success
Draft version: Date:
ADP Planning I/II instructor review:
|_| Approved; may proceed with chair and committee
solicitation.
|_| Changes requested; must revise and resubmit. Resubmission
must include a change
matrix that includes the instructor comments and how each

comment was addressed in the revision.
Beginning on the following page, please complete the following
sections in this template, using black, 12-point font. Please
address all requested content.
· Justification Statement
· Purpose Statement
· Importance of the Study
· Proposed Project Approach
· Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent
· References (formatted according to the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association, sixth edition)
Justification Statement: Provide sufficient background of the
topic area and its relationship to the discipline or field of study
that supports the need for, or opportunity to, conduct the
proposed project. Describe the issue, situation, problem or
opportunity that reinforces the need to implement the study,
supported by recent citations from the literature. Briefly explain
how the intended outcomes of the project could be used to
advance knowledge, understanding or practice in the discipline
or field of study. (2-3 paragraphs)
Purpose Statement: Provide a specific, accurate synopsis of the
overall purpose of the project. Align the Purpose Statement to
the Justification Statement. In one concise paragraph, succinctly
describe the focus, project approach, scope, and intended
outcomes of the study. (1 paragraph)
Importance of the Project: Briefly describe the importance of
the proposed project, including how the project represents a
unique approach to the topic, how results may contribute to
theory, knowledge and/or practice in the discipline, and the
implications of the study to scholars and practitioners. Identify
any knowledge gaps to be addressed by the proposed project.
(1-2 paragraphs)

Proposed Project Approach: Briefly describe the approach for
the proposed project, including how the project will be
conceptualized, organized and implemented, and discuss how
the proposed project will reflect accumulated learning from the
student’s academic program. Discuss any proposed data
collection methodologies and instrumentation, as well as the
study population, as appropriate. Describe how project
outcomes will be achieved. (2-3 paragraphs)
Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent:
Present the over-arching study question(s) or statement of
project intent to be addressed, consistent with the proposed
Purpose Statement and project approach. If hypotheses will be
tested, identify the specific quantitative research questions and
hypotheses, as well. (1 paragraph)
References: List and cite a minimum of 10 sources that support
and reinforce justification of the project.
1
ADP Project Justification Template (PJT)
Revised 5/8/2018
Student name: Jane Doe
Program: Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.)
Specialization: Criminology and Justice Studies
Working title: Dual Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Abuse in War Veterans: An
Analysis of Treatment Options and the Factors Affecting their
Success
Draft version:
Date:

ADP Planning I/II instructor review:
Approved; may proceed with chair and committee solicitation.
Changes requested; must revise and resubmit. Resubmission
must include a change
matrix that includes the instructor comments and how each
comment was addressed in the revision.
Beginning on the following page, please complete the following
sections in this template, using black, 12-point font. Please
address all requested content.
· Justification Statement
· Purpose Statement
· Importance of the Study
· Proposed Project Approach
· Over-arching Study Question(s)/Statement of Project Intent
· References (formatted according to the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association, sixth edition)
Justification Statement: Provide sufficient background of the
topic area and its relationship to the discipline or field of study
that supports the need for, or opportunity to, conduct the
proposed project. Describe the issue, situation, problem or
opportunity that reinforces the need to implement the study,
supported by recent citations from the literature. Briefly explain
how the intended outcomes of the project could be used to
advance knowledge, understanding or practice in the discipline
or field of study. (2-3 paragraphs)
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is characterized by
recurring symptoms of distress felt after an exposure to a
traumatic event (Masters, 2018). Veterans with PTSD may have
intense and vivid flashbacks to the original traumatic event; in

addition, they may feel as if they are reliving the event as well
as experience sadness, anger, and detachment or estrangement
from others (Cooper et al., 2016). Additional PTSD symptoms
include significant changes in attitudes and beliefs, changes in
personality, hyperarousal, anxiety, paranoia, depression, and
increased suicide ideation (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014).
Military veterans who are exposed to combat have a higher risk
of experiencing PTSD (Steinman, Hunter, & Teachman, 2013).
Nemeroff and Marmar (2018) found that every year,
approximately 11–20% of veterans who served in the middle
eastern Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, 12%
of Gulf War veterans, and 15–30% of the Vietnam War veterans
experienced PTSD. Miles, Graham, and Teng (2015) stated that
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) often accompanies PTSD for
many veterans and that it co-occurs with substance abuse.
Furthermore, evidence of the comorbidity of PTSD, TBI, and
substance abuse is well-documented in health and academic
research (Acierno, 2016; Karlin et al., 2010; Miles et al., 2015).
However, mental health providers continue to struggle to
identify the most effective practice-based treatments for veteran
patients with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse
(Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Najavits, Krinsley, Waring,
Gallagher, & Skidmore, 2018). Currently, research on the
treatment of veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and
substance abuse is being conducted at many levels, such as
federally funded projects, universities, hospitals, and
practitioner organizations (Clees, 2018).
From 2010 to 2019, war has pushed PTSD to the forefront of
public health concerns (Karlin et al., 2010). Veterans suffering
from PTSD have a higher risk of other health issues than the
general population as well as face unique barriers such as
inconvenient scheduling, as well as a lack of accessible
transportation to and from clinics to access adequate treatment
(Bowe & Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). There is a need

for a systematic review of the published academic literature
covering successful treatment methods and outcomes for
veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse.
Such a review would help practitioners make treatment
decisions for their patients as well as aid researchers in their
analysis of the treatment modality of veterans with a dual
diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse.
Purpose Statement: Provide a specific, accurate synopsis of the
overall purpose of the project. Align the Purpose Statement to
the Justification Statement. In one concise paragraph, succinctly
describe the focus, project approach, scope, and intended
outcomes of the study. (1 paragraph)
The purpose of this project is to conduct a study on why
veterans with PTSD do not follow through with treatment. To
date, no exploration or unified presentation of effective
treatment methods for a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance
abuse in the combat veteran population exists (Berke et al.,
2019). The current inequality in access to proper mental health
treatment services faced by returning U.S. veterans echoes the
variations in access to quality mental health services
experienced by the general population (Clees, 2018). Both
researchers and practitioners have voiced a need for the
identification of effective treatment methods (Bowe &
Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). The scope of this research
will be limited to journal articles published in academic peer-
reviewed publications between 2010 and 2019; such research
includes the results of treatment or intervention for veterans
with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Marshall et
al., 2019).
Importance of the Project: Briefly describe the importance of
the proposed project, including how the project represents a
unique approach to the topic, how results may contribute to
theory, knowledge and/or practice in the discipline, and the
implications of the study to scholars and practitioners. Identify
any knowledge gaps to be addressed by the proposed project.
(1-2 paragraphs)

Since 2010, veterans who serve in active combat experience
PTSD (Charney et al., 2018). As much as 11–20% of the
veterans who served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom are diagnosed with PTSD; this percentage rises to 30%
of veterans from other military operations such as Desert Storm
and the Vietnam War (Waltman, 2015). Many veterans have
received a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse (Bowe
& Rosenheck, 2014; Miles et al., 2015). Despite the large
number of veterans with PTSD, there is a dearth of academic
literature that reviews and discusses the various approaches
taken to treat this population (Berke et al., 2019). Researchers,
academicians, and practitioners have all noted that there is a
need to compile and review evidence-based, experimental, and
quasi-experimentally researched treatment approaches. This
should be done to help mental health providers make more
informed choices when treating veterans with a dual diagnosis
of PTSD and substance abuse (Bowe & Rosenheck, 2015).
This project aims to determine why veterans do not seek
treatment. Several factors come into play regarding veterans
who do not reach out for treatment. The distance between the
veteran and the nearest clinic can be an obstacle to the required
mental health treatment (Cooper et al., 2016). Many veterans
suspect that something is not right but are not sure what it is;
knowing the signs of PTSD can help to promote the timely
acquisition of the necessary treatment. Furthermore, veterans
who believe they can get better with treatment and who believe
that treatment can work are more likely to seek treatment
(Cooper et al., 2016). Support from family, friends, and nearby
clinics will increase the chances of the veterans getting
treatment (Waltman, 2015). Organizations such as the National
Center for PTSD are working to educate both veterans and the
general population about PTSD to help them make informed
decisions (Marshall et al., 2019).
Proposed Project Approach: Briefly describe the approach for
the proposed project, including how the project will be

conceptualized, organized and implemented, and discuss how
the proposed project will reflect accumulated learning from the
student’s academic program. Discuss any proposed data
collection methodologies and instrumentation, as well as the
study population, as appropriate. Describe how project
outcomes will be achieved. (2-3 paragraphs)
The approach for this project is a systematic literature review.
A systematic literature review is a research methodology where
the researcher reviews academic literature on a specific topic;
said research consists primarily of articles published in peer-
reviewed or open-access journals (Panaite et al., 2018).
Systematic literature reviews are usually a standalone research
project where the researcher does not gather any primary data
and, instead, uses existing academically published literature on
a chosen topic as the data in the study.
The project will be conducted in several steps, as recommended
by Turgoose, Ashwick, and Murphy (2017). First, the researcher
will establish the criteria for article selection. These criteria
will include a consideration of the articles that will be included
and those that will be excluded from the final analysis and
synthesis. Second, the researcher will search for the articles
using academic search engines via the university library and
other academic search engines, such as Google Scholar. Third,
the researcher will evaluate the quality of each article; a
decision will then be made as to whether each article should be
included in the final synthesis of the results, based on the
exclusion and inclusion criteria. Finally, each article will be
analyzed, and the results will be synthesized, with the
conclusions being provided about best therapy practices for
veterans with a dual diagnosis of PTSD and substance abuse.
Writing a literature review is perhaps the best piece of literature
that a student can work with because it means the student is
already near the end of their final stages in their studies (Lewis,
Easterday, Harburg, Gerber, & Riesbeck, 2017). In a literature

Running head PERSONALITY INVENTORIES1PERSONALITY INVENTORIE.docx

Running head PERSONALITY INVENTORIES1PERSONALITY INVENTORIE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from glendar3

More from glendar3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head PERSONALITY INVENTORIES1PERSONALITY INVENTORIE.docx