The “CSI Effect” in an Actual Juror Sample:

Why Crime Show Genre May Matter

Dante E. Mancini
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Highly limited empirical research has supported the existence of the “CSI
effect,” defined as the influence of heavy forensic television program
viewership on perceptions of scientific evidence and juror decision-
making. Recently, cultivation theory has been proposed as a potential
explanation of any television viewing influence, but virtually no prior
studies have distinguished crime show sub-genres (fiction and
documentary-style) in viewership measures. The current study
investigated whether a difference score measure of fiction-to-
documentary forensic television program viewership was related to juror
decision-making. Participants were 79 actual jurors who viewed a video
recorded summary of a real murder trial, then completed measures of
forensic television viewership and perceived realism, verdict preferences,
verdict reasons, and perceptions of the presented evidence. Viewership
predicted verdict preference as hypothesized, with heavier fiction viewers
rendering more acquittals compared to lighter viewers. However, heavier
fiction viewers were no more likely to mention DNA evidence as a
verdict reason or report a greater preference for either the prosecution’s
or defense’s evidence. These findings suggest that relative sub-genre
viewership may be important in establishing empirical support of the CSI
effect.

There is little doubt that the American public has taken a keen interest
in crime investigation and forensic science over the past decade,
particularly as reflected in television programming. In a recent Frontline
program episode entitled “The Real CSI,” well-known forensic
pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht remarked, “There’s this great, great hunger,
this incredible fascination with forensic science. I often quip that we are
up there now with sex, motherhood, apple pie, and baseball” (Cediel &
Bergman, 2012). This interest has likely been sparked by the enormous
popularity of television programs such as CBS network’s CSI: Crime
Scene Investigation and a plethora of other crime and forensic science-
based programs. In June 2012, at the end of its twelfth season, CSI was
named the most watched television program in the world for the fifth
time in seven years, with an estimated 63 million viewers worldwide

________________________________
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Dante E. Mancini, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychology – Uhler Hall 302, 1020
Oakland Avenue, Indiana, PA 15705, E-mail: dante.mancini@iup.edu.
North American Journal of Psychology, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 3, 543-564.
 NAJP
544 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

(Bibel, 2012), and clone program NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative

Service was named the most popular television program in America
during the 2012-13 season, even garnering more viewers than Sunday
Night Football (Patten, 2013). Furthermore, as of this writing, CSI, NCIS,
and NCIS: Los Angeles can all be found among the ten most watched
programs in a given week in the United States (The Nielsen Company,
2013). Although less popular than fictional programs, documentary-style
crime programs based on actual criminal cases have also proliferated in
the past decade, such as A&E’s The First 48, Crime 360, and American
Justice, and truTV’s Forensic Files and The Investigators. The
popularity of these programs appears to have led to even more outlets for
exposure to forensic science and crime investigation via other means as
well, as reflected by the rather recent development of specialized exhibits
(CSI: The Experience in Las Vegas, Orlando, and Macao through the
Museum of Science and History) and even an entire museum (The
National Museum of Crime and Punishment, Washington, D.C., which
features specialized exhibits and workshops on forensic science
investigation).
Only two years after the premiere of CSI in 2000, various media
outlets began suggesting the existence of a “CSI effect” in which
frequent viewers of CSI and other forensic-themed programs gained an
unrealistic perception of the availability and utility of forensic scientific
evidence as well as a false sense of expertise in forensic investigative
methods (e.g., Roane, 2007; Toobin, 2005). A majority of these media
reports have suggested that programs such as CSI have led to unrealistic
juror expectations for forensic evidence (Harvey & Derksen, 2009). As
of this writing, at least four books have been published on the subject
(Byers & Johnson, 2009; McDonald, 2009; Ramsland, 2006; Stevens,
2011), and some scholars have proposed more wide-ranging effects.
Cole and Dioso-Villa (2009, 2011), for instance, outlined eight subtypes
of the CSI effect to clarify its extensive influence on jurors, police and
forensic investigators, attorneys and judges, educational institutions, and
the general public. Of these subtypes, perhaps the most threatening to the
criminal justice system is the “strong prosecutor’s effect” in which
jurors who are heavy viewers of forensic science television programs
develop unrealistically high standards for the availability and utility of
scientific evidence, and when they are undoubtedly disappointed with
actual forensic evidence presented in court, they are more likely to acquit
defendants compared to their non-viewing cohorts. The potential impact
of the strong prosecutor’s effect remains a hotly debated topic, with some
speculation that it may have played a part in some of the more media
sensationalized acquittals, such as in the criminal trials of Robert Blake
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 545

or Casey Anthony (e.g., Blankstein & Guccione, 2005; Heinrick, 2006;

Picht, 2011; Ryan, 2011).
The CSI effect is presently among the most highly conjectured media
effects (Sarapin & Sparks, 2009). However, while it has certainly
received a great deal of attention in the mass media, and while survey
studies have suggested that judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers,
and criminal investigators hold strong beliefs in its existence (e.g., Huey,
2010; Patry, Smith, & Stinson, 2008; Robbers, 2008), it has received
little empirical support. As of this writing, a total of nine published
studies have investigated the strong prosecutor’s effect subtype (Baskin
& Sommers, 2010; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011; Holmgren & Fordham,
2011; Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009; Mancini, 2011; Podlas, 2006, 2009;
Schweitzer & Saks, 2007; Shelton, Kim, & Barak, 2007), all of which
used measures of frequency of forensic television viewing and defendant
guilt in response to criminal trial scenarios and/or descriptions. Out of
these, only two (Baskin & Sommers, 2010; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011)
provided any evidence of a relationship between amount of forensic-
themed television viewing and judgments of defendant guilt. However, a
majority of the studies provided evidence that frequency of forensic-
themed television viewing was associated with increased demands for
scientific evidence and perceptions of scientific evidence quality (Baskin
& Sommers, 2010; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011; Holmgren & Fordham,
2011; Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009; Schweitzer & Saks, 2007; Shelton,
Kim, & Barak, 2007) and familiarity with forensic investigators’ tasks
(Mancini, 2011; Schweitzer & Saks, 2007). Furthermore, an
experimental study which did not investigate the strong prosecutor’s
effect (Smith, Patry, & Stinson, 2007) found that compared to
participants who watched no or few (one to three) CSI episodes over a
two-week period, participants who watched more (four to eight) episodes
of CSI rated scientific evidence (e.g., DNA, fingerprint) more favorably
than non-scientific evidence (e.g., eyewitness testimony, confession).
Some limitations common in these studies included use of homogeneous
undergraduate mock juror samples (Mancini, 2011; Podlas, 2006, 2009;
Schweitzer & Saks, 2007) and lack of ecological validity due to use of
extremely briefly summarized criminal trial scenarios (Baskin &
Sommers, 2010; Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009; Shelton, Kim, & Barak,
2007).
Recently, some authors (Bilandzic, Busselle, Spitzner, Kalch, &
Reich, 2009; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011) have suggested that a well-
established theory of media effects, known as cultivation theory
(Gerbner, 1972; Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2009), may be
important in understanding the CSI effect, if it exists. In fact, Bilandzic
et al. (2009) remarked that CSI effect research has indeed corresponded
546 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

closely with a cultivation perspective. According to cultivation theory,

commonly repeated images and messages presented on television
cultivate a distorted perception of social reality such that—within similar
demographic subgroups—frequent television viewers are more likely
than infrequent viewers to perceive the real world through the lens of the
television world. Simply put, the more television a person watches, the
more that person is likely to perceive reality as similar to what is viewed
on television. Literally hundreds of cultivation studies have been
conducted over the past three decades; two meta-analyses of some of this
research (Dossche & Van den Bulck, 2010; Shanahan & Morgan, 1999)
indicated that television consumption exerts a small but stable
contribution to viewers’ beliefs and perspectives, particularly in those of
crime and the criminal justice system. As some examples of cultivation
study findings that are potentially relevant to the CSI effect, frequent
television viewing has been associated with increased fear of crime and
criminal victimization (e.g., Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003; Romer,
Jamieson, & Aday, 2003), increased perceived prevalence of violence
(e.g., Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Nabi & Sullivan, 2001; Signorielli, 1990)
and of law enforcement occupations within society (Gerbner & Gross,
1976), and science knowledge and belief in the promise of science (e.g.,
Nisbet, Scheufele, Shanahan, Moy, Brossard, & Lewenstein, 2002).
The original cultivation hypothesis (Gerbner, 1972; Gerbner & Gross,
1976) contended that general television exposure was responsible for any
cultivation effects due to common, consistent messages conveyed across
all television programming that could not be attributed to any specific
genre or program. However, a common criticism is that grouping all
television programming together and regarding its content as
homogenous is inaccurate and outdated (Morgan & Shanahan, 2010),
particularly due to dramatic changes in recent decades in the way in
which the public consumes television programming. Given the massive
expansion of cable systems—with some networks specializing in specific
genres of programming (e.g., Animal Planet, truTV, SyFy, Travel
Channel, History Channel, etc.)—and modern technological
developments (e.g., cable and satellite networks, VCRs, DVD players,
DVRs, and the Internet), viewers now can exercise far more control than
ever before over the selection and scheduling of television programming
(Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2009). Along with this greater
control, it has been suggested that some viewers may selectively watch
specific genres of programming (Hammond, Farrar, & Jalette, 2009). As
a result, more recent research investigating genre-specific cultivation
processes has been conducted and thus far has yielded some promising
results, finding relationships between viewing and genre-specific
perceptions and attitudes in such genres as talk shows (e.g., Glynn, Huge,
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 547

Reineke, Hardy, & Shanahan, 2007; Woo & Dominick, 2003),

“makeover” programs (e.g., Kubic & Chory, 2007), and even in specific
programs such as the popular medical drama Grey’s Anatomy (Quick,
2009). In fact, in their recent meta-analysis, Dossche and Van den Bulck
(2010) found that studies measuring genre-specific viewing actually
yielded greater effect sizes in predicting cultivation variables than those
measuring general television viewing.
With regard to studying how cultivation theory may be used to
investigate the CSI effect, it may be important to distinguish the crime
show sub-genres of fictional and “reality-based” or documentary-style
programs because of the considerable difference in the ways in which the
availability, efficiency, and utility of forensic scientific investigative
procedures and evidence are depicted in each. In fictional programs
(e.g., CSI, NCIS, Bones), highly astute crime scene investigators use
extremely sophisticated, efficient techniques and procedures to recover
and analyze evidence from crime scenes, which inevitably leads to the
identity of the perpetrator, who often confesses to the crime by the end of
the one-hour episode. However, in reality, many of these depicted
techniques are often wildly exaggerated or even non-existent (Heinrick,
2006; Podlas, 2009; Schweitzer & Saks, 2007). Documentary-style
programs (e.g., The First 48, Crime 360, Cold Case Files), on the other
hand, follow real law enforcement officers and agents investigating real
crimes, and thus naturally provide a more realistic depiction of crime
investigation, with investigators at times making human errors and using
fruitless procedures. In fact, sometimes the perpetrator is never identified
by the end of the episode. Thus, perhaps each sub-genre involves
distinctively different cultivation processes; fictional programs may
involve cultivation processes based on the highly distorted images and
messages about the infallibility of forensic science, while documentary-
style programs may involve cultivation processes that are less distorted
and more grounded in reality.
Few published cultivation studies have investigated genre-specific
cultivation processes within crime shows (e.g., Escholz, Chiricos, &
Gertz, 2003; Grabe & Drew, 2007; Oliver & Armstrong, 1995), and even
fewer have made any distinctions among the sub-genres. Furthermore,
no previous CSI effect research has made this distinction, but instead has
tended to use viewership measures which group all crime shows together
as if they were comparable. However, some research has suggested that
there may be meaningful distinctions in viewer attitude and personality
variables among those who tend to view one sub-genre more often than
the other. For example, in an early survey study comparing these sub-
genres—but prior to the existence of CSI and other similar forensic
science-based procedurals—Oliver and Armstrong (1995) found that
548 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

reality-based viewing (e.g., older programs such as Cops, America’s

Most Wanted, FBI: The Untold Story) was associated with punitive
attitudes toward crime, higher levels of racial prejudice, and higher levels
of authoritarianism, while fictional viewing (e.g., Law and Order,
Matlock, Heat of the Night) was not associated with these variables. In
addition, viewers rated the reality-based programs as more realistic than
the fictional programs.
In summary, the strong prosecutor’s subtype of the CSI effect (Cole
& Dioso-Villa, 2009, 2011) contends that heavy crime show fiction-
viewing jurors develop a distorted view of the availability and utility of
forensic scientific evidence and are more likely to acquit a defendant
when presented with seemingly substandard pro-prosecution evidence in
real life. In other words, these viewers are more likely to favor the
defense when pro-prosecution scientific evidence is perceived as below
the standards of that depicted in forensic fiction crime show programs
and will identify this perceived substandard evidence as the reason for
their acquittals. Previous CSI effect and cultivation research has
suggested that increased television viewership is associated with
differences in beliefs and perceptions about crime, law enforcement
occupations and tasks, and even scientific evidence, but there is little to
no evidence that viewership is associated with jury decision-making
processes. However, given the recent research indicating genre-specific
cultivation processes and that virtually no previous CSI effect studies
have distinguished sub-genres in measures of crime show viewing, it
appears that making this distinction may be important as a next step in
this line of research, a step that several researchers have already
recommended (Grabe & Drew, 2007; Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011). As
Morgan and Shanahan (2010) contend, heavy television viewers are
unlikely to watch only isolated genres of programs, and thus any
influence of a specific program or genre ought to be considered in the
context of other viewed programming. Therefore, the current study aimed
to investigate whether making the distinction between two sub-genres of
forensic science television programming (i.e., fictional vs. “reality-
based” or documentary-style) and using a difference score measure of
their relative viewing to divide participants into lighter and heavier
fiction viewership groups might be a successful method of determining
any differences in juror perceptions and decision-making. To maximize
ecological validity, an actual juror sample viewed a video recorded
summary of footage from an actual murder trial and was administered a
series of questionnaires measuring viewership habits of the two sub-
genres of forensic science programs as well as their verdicts, verdict
reasons, and perceptions of the presented evidence and familiarity with
forensic investigators’ and scientists’ tasks. The following hypotheses
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 549

were proposed according to the strong prosecutor’s subtype of the CSI

effect: (1) relative to their documentary-style viewership, heavier fiction
viewers would perceive a defendant in a criminal trial as less guilty
compared to lighter fiction viewers; (2) heavier fiction viewers would
more often cite scientific evidence as the main reason for their verdicts
compared to lighter fiction viewers; (3) heavier fiction viewers would
report greater familiarity with forensic investigators’ and scientists’ tasks
than lighter fiction viewers, similar to previous findings (Mancini, 2011;
Schweitzer & Saks, 2007); and (4) heavier fiction viewers would report
less satisfaction with the prosecution’s evidence and greater satisfaction
with the defense’s evidence compared to lighter fiction viewers.

METHOD
Participants
Eighty jurors (68% female, 96% Caucasian, Mage = 49.7, SD = 12.4)
actively serving jury duty in a Western Pennsylvania courthouse were
offered $20 each for their participation. Regarding education levels, 1.3%
had less than a high school diploma or GED, 25.3% had a high school
diploma or GED, 34.2% had some college or a two-year degree, 29.1%
had a four-year college degree, 7.6% had a master’s degree, and 2.5%
had a doctoral degree. Annual family income levels were comprised of
3.7% with $10,000 or less, 11.0% between $10,001 and $25,000, 18.3%
between $25,001 and $50,000, 39.0% between $50,001 and $100,000,
12.2% between $100,001 and $150,000, 6.1% between $150,001 and
$200,000, and 3.7% over $200,000. Three participants did not report
annual family income.

Materials
Criminal trial stimulus video. A 48-minute edited video recorded
summary of the criminal trial Colorado v. Galek (2009) included actual
courtroom footage as presented on the program In Session on the truTV
television channel in November 2009. As shown in the footage, 17-year-
old defendant Andrew Galek was charged with the first-degree stabbing
murder of 63-year-old Hans Winter, the father of the defendant’s friend,
Kevin Winter, during a sleepover in their home. According to the
prosecution, after Galek and Kevin Winter had consumed a large amount
of tequila over a three-hour period, Galek then stabbed Mr. Winter in the
abdomen with a kitchen knife while he lay in bed, awakening both the
victim and his wife, Beverly Winter, who reportedly witnessed Galek
flee the room. Mrs. Winter testified that Mr. Winter cried out, “Why did
you hit me, Andy [Galek]?” when he was stabbed, and while she did not
realize that Galek had stabbed the victim initially as she talked with
Galek minutes later in the basement of their home, she later noticed the
550 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

wound while she was on the phone with a 911 emergency operator. Mr.
Winter lost consciousness and was unable to provide useful information
about the stabbing, and he died in the ambulance as a result of internal
bleeding from a severed iliac artery. The prosecution emphasized that
Galek eventually fled the home after speaking with Mrs. Winter and hid
under a truck, only to be quickly apprehended by police as they
threatened to use a Taser. The defense contended that Galek was too
intoxicated to remember anything, that Mrs. Winter did not have a clear
view of the perpetrator as he left the darkened room, and emphasized that
the surface of the bed sheet near the cut in which the knife penetrated
contained DNA obtained from skin cells which excluded Galek as a
possible perpetrator. The footage included expert testimony from the
laboratory technician who conducted the DNA testing. It should be noted
that while Galek later confessed to the crime in several letters to a
girlfriend while incarcerated and awaiting trial, these details were
excluded from the edited trial footage.
Demographic questionnaire. This was a five-item questionnaire
assessing participants’ gender, age, race/ethnicity, highest level of
education, and approximate family income.
Verdict questionnaire. This was a 10-item questionnaire measuring
participants’ prior familiarity with the Colorado v. Galek case (yes or
no), dichotomous verdict (guilty or not guilty), confidence in verdict on a
10-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all confident to 10 = completely
confident), an open-ended item requesting the participants’ two most
important reasons for their verdicts, an open-ended estimate of the
percentage of likelihood of crime commission generally required for a
defendant to be found guilty, and an estimate of the probability that the
defendant committed the crime (0% to 100% in 10% increments).
Participants were asked to render a guilty verdict based upon the “beyond
a reasonable doubt” standard. The open-ended verdict reason item was
dichotomously dummy-coded (0 = absent, 1 = present) for the presence
or absence of the mention of DNA because this was the main piece of
scientific evidence highlighted in the trial footage. In addition, the
mention of any scientific evidence at all (e.g., DNA, blood alcohol
content of the defendant, fingerprints, blood spatter analysis, etc.) was
also dummy-coded. The last four items measured participants’ level of
agreement with statements of perceived familiarity with forensic
investigators’ and scientists’ tasks (similar to items used successfully by
Schweitzer & Saks, 2007 & Mancini, 2011) as well as satisfaction with
the prosecution’s and defense’s presented scientific evidence, all rated on
7-point Likert-type scales (1 = not at all agree to 7 = completely agree).
Forensic television viewing habits questionnaire. This
questionnaire measured participants’ estimates of viewing frequency and
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 551

realism over the prior three-month period of a total of 25 currently aired

forensic science television programs, either first-run or in rerun
syndication. These were divided into 11 forensic science fiction (e.g.,
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, CSI: NY, NCIS: Naval Criminal
Investigative Service, Body of Proof, Bones) and 14 forensic science
documentary (e.g., Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, The First 48, Crime
360, American Justice) programs. Viewing frequency was rated using a
scale from 0 = never/less than once per month to 10 = ten or more times
per month. For each program that was rated at least a 1 (indicating
viewership of once per month), the participant was instructed to rate that
program’s realism using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all
realistic to 5 = extremely realistic).

Procedure
Prior to each of eight data collection sessions, potential participant
jurors were solicited while seated in an approximately 200-seat capacity
jury waiting room during a period in which it was known that they would
not be selected for voir dire for the day’s docket, usually right before
their 90-minute lunch break. They were asked to participate in a study of
jury decision-making and were told that the study would involve the
viewing of a 48-minute video of footage from a real criminal trial and the
completion of a set of questionnaires, all of which would require
approximately 60-75 minutes. Finally, they were told that they would
receive $20 compensation for their participation, and that those who were
interested were to take a seat towards the front of the room where the
video equipment—including a DVD player and two 42-inch LCD
televisions—was located. Those who were not interested were dismissed.
Once the participant group was assembled, they were provided with
informed consent forms and a packet of questionnaires sealed in
envelopes, which they were instructed not to open until further notice.
After completing and submitting the informed consent, the participants
were provided with a set of instructions—also read aloud to them—
asking them to imagine they were jurors in the criminal trial of Colorado
v. Galek in which defendant Andrew Galek was charged with the first-
degree murder of Hans Winter. Participants were instructed to watch the
trial video carefully and to use the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt
in their judgments of guilt. The video was then shown to the participants
in its entirety, at which time the participants were instructed to open and
complete their questionnaire packets. The participants were then
debriefed upon completion and submission of their questionnaires and
were notified that each would receive a $20 check by mail in the
following two to three weeks.
552 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

As Dossche & Van den Bulck (2010) recommend, summation scales

were used for both the fiction and documentary-style program viewership
scores by summing the 11 forensic fiction program ratings and the 14
forensic documentary-style program ratings. A fiction-documentary
difference score was then calculated by subtracting the documentary-
style viewership scores from the fiction viewership scores; thus, positive
scores indicated greater relative fiction viewership, negative scores
indicated greater relative documentary-style viewership, and zero or near
zero indicated a relatively equal amount of viewership of each sub-genre.
Mean realism scores for each of the fiction and documentary-style
programs were calculated. A verdict scale score was also calculated as a
scalar variable, multiplying the confidence in verdict rating by 1 for
guilty verdicts and by -1 for not guilty verdicts, creating a scale range of
+10 (complete confidence in guilt) to -10 (complete confidence in non-
guilt).

RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Of the sample, none indicated familiarity with the case prior to the
study, 23 (28.8%) reported viewing no forensic fiction programs, 33
(41.3%) reported viewing no forensic documentary-style programs, and
17 (21.3%) reported viewing no forensic fiction or documentary-style
programs during the previous three months. Using only participants (n =
29) who rated the realism of at least the median number of fiction (Md =
2) and documentary-style (Md = 1) programs, a paired samples t test
revealed that documentary-style programs (M = 3.48, SD = 0.85) were
rated significantly more realistically than fiction programs (M = 2.89, SD
= 0.87), t (28) = 3.13, p = .004, d = .58. In addition, among the entire
sample, mean fiction program realism ratings were positively correlated
with frequency of fiction program viewership, r (52) = .28, p = .048, and
with mean documentary-style program realism ratings, r (36) = .38, p =
.024. However, mean documentary-style program realism ratings were
unrelated to frequency of viewership of documentary-style, r (44) = -.08,
p = .625, or fiction programs, r (44) = -.04, p = .816. Thus, forensic
fiction and documentary-style programs were perceived differently in
their levels of realism, realism ratings for both sub-genres were positively
associated, and while increased viewing frequency of forensic fiction
programs was related to increased perception of the realism of both
fiction and documentary-style programs, increased viewing of
documentary-style programs was unrelated to perception of realism of
either sub-genre.
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 553

Hypothesis Testing
To test the hypotheses, the most logical approach based on recent
cultivation theory research—which has suggested that amount of sub-
genre television viewing influences one’s perception of social reality—
appeared to require taking the relative amount of both forensic science
fiction and documentary-style viewership into account; therefore, the
fiction-documentary difference score was used as a basis of dividing
participants into two groups. “Lighter fiction” viewers (n = 41 or 51% of
the sample) were designated as those with difference scores at or below
zero (M = -3.95, SD = 8.48), while “heavier fiction” viewers (n = 39 or
49% of the sample) were designated as those with difference scores

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Predictor and Outcome Variables

Variable M SD
Verdict scale (positive = guilty; n = 79) -4.66 6.15
Forensic fiction viewership score (n = 79) 9.35 12.85

Forensic documentary viewership score (n = 79) 5.89 12.52

Fiction-documentary difference viewership score (n = 79) 3.47 12.21

Forensic fiction realism score (n = 51) 2.87 0.90

Forensic documentary realism score (n = 44) 3.58 0.87

Defendant guilt percentage (n = 78) 48.14 28.39

Percentage required for judgment of guilt (n = 77) 91.23 18.99

Familiarity with investigators’ tasks (n = 79) 4.32 1.68

Familiarity with scientists’ tasks (n = 79) 4.39 1.71

Satisfaction with prosecution’s evidence (n = 77) 3.99 1.83

Satisfaction with defense’s evidence (n = 78) 4.46 1.60

Verdict and verdict reasons (n = 79) n %

Guilty verdict 14 17.3

Verdict reason mentions DNA 43 53.1

Verdict reason mentions any scientific evidence 50 63.3

554 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

greater than zero (M = 11.69, SD = 10.43). Thus, lighter fiction viewers

reported watching either more documentary-style than fiction
programs—or at least the same amount of each sub-genre—while heavier
fiction viewers reported watching more fiction than documentary-style
programs.
Since the first hypothesis was the most critical, descriptive statistics
for the verdict scale were compared between the lighter fiction (M = -
2.98, SD = 7.00) and heavier fiction (M = -6.05, SD = 5.17) viewer
groups, revealing one outlier case in the heavier fiction group, identified
by having rendered a verdict scale score (x = 10) that was greater than 3
standard deviations beyond the group mean (x > 9.46). This case was
removed from the dataset, leaving a sample size of n = 79. The overall
sample data descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1. A chi-square
test of independence revealed that heavier fiction viewers (n = 3 or 7.9%)
rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than lighter fiction viewers (n
= 11 or 26.8%), χ2 (1, N = 79) = 4.85, p = .028, φ = .25. Furthermore,
following up with the more sensitive scalar verdict scale score, while the
continuous difference score viewership measure was only marginally
correlated with the verdict scale score in the hypothesized direction, r
(79) = -.20, p = .078, heavier fiction viewers endorsed significantly lower
verdict scale scores as well as lower defendant guilt percentage scores
than lighter fiction viewers (see Table 2), supporting the first hypothesis.

TABLE 2 Differences in Outcome Variables Between Lighter and Heavier

Fiction Viewership Groups

Lighter fiction Heavier fiction

Outcome variable M SD M SD df t p Cohen’s

d

Verdict scale (positive = -2.98 6.99 -6.47 4.51 77 2.62 .010 0.60
guilty)
Defendant guilt 54.88 28.03 40.68 27.24 76 2.27 .026 0.52
percentage
Percentage required for 90.25 21.98 92.30 15.34 75 -0.47 .639 0.11
judgment of guilt
Familiarity with 4.15 1.73 4.50 1.62 77 -0.94 .352 0.21
investigators’ tasks
Familiarity with 4.22 1.77 4.58 1.64 77 -0.94 .353 0.21
scientists’ tasks
Satisfaction with 3.76 1.87 4.25 1.78 75 -1.18 .240 0.27
prosecution’s evidence
Satisfaction with 4.49 1.65 4.43 1.57 76 0.15 .880 0.03
defense’s evidence
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 555

Next, a chi-square test of independence revealed that heavier fiction

viewers (n = 22 or 57.9%) were no more likely to mention DNA
evidence as a verdict reason than lighter fiction viewers (n = 21 or
51.2%), χ2 (1, N = 79) = 0.35, p = .552, φ = .07, and a second chi-square
test of independence revealed that heavier fiction viewers (n = 26 or
68.4%) were no more likely to mention any scientific evidence at all as a
verdict reason compared to lighter fiction viewers (n = 24 or 58.5%), χ2
(1, N = 79) = 0.83, p = .362, φ = .10. These results did not support the
second hypothesis. The third hypothesis was also unsupported; as
indicated in Table 2, heavier fiction viewers did not endorse significantly
greater familiarity with forensic investigators’ or scientists’ tasks
compared to lighter fiction viewers. Finally, the fourth hypothesis was
unsupported; as indicated in Table 2, compared to lighter fiction viewers,

TABLE 3 Correlations Between Viewership Scores and Outcome

Variables
Summed Difference
Variable viewership score viewership score
Verdict scale (positive = guilty; n = 79) -.08 -.20†

Defendant guilt percentage (n = 78) -.08 -.12

Percentage required for -.36** .14

judgment of guilt (n = 77)
Familiarity with investigators’tasks .20† .11
(n = 79)
Familiarity with scientists’ tasks (n = 79) .22† .10

Satisfaction with prosecution’s evidence .18 .20†

(n = 77)
Satisfaction with defense’s evidence -.05 .10
(n = 78)
Mention of DNA as a verdict reason -.22† .15
(0 = absent, 1 = present; n = 79)
Mention of any scientific evidence as a -.12 .21†
verdict reason (0 = absent, 1 =
present; n = 79)
Note. †p < .10. **p < .01.
heavier fiction viewers did not report less satisfaction with the
prosecution’s evidence or more satisfaction with the defense’s evidence.

Follow-Up Analyses
Because the fiction and documentary-style programs appeared to be
perceived differently in their realism accordingly to the preliminary
analyses, and since previous research has relied solely on summed ratings
556 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

of all forensic television programming as the measure of viewership, a

summed score of the fiction and documentary-style viewership ratings
was calculated (M = 15.24, SD = 22.24) to compare it with the difference
score measure. Indeed, this summed score did not correlate with the
difference score, r (79) = .03, p = .784, suggesting that these scores
measured different constructs. To compare them, a series of Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between these
two scores and the continuous outcome variables used in hypothesis
testing and two point-biserial correlations were calculated between these
two scores and the dichotomous verdict reason variables (see Table 3).
Furthermore, both viewership scores were entered as predictor variables
in a series of multiple regression analyses with the same continuous
outcome variables (see Table 4).
TABLE 4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting
Outcome Variables
Outcome variable and source B SE B β t R2
Verdict scale (higher scores = increased guilt) .05
Summed viewership score -0.02 0.03 -0.08 -0.69
Difference viewership score -0.10 0.06 -0.20 -1.76†
Defendant guilt percentage .02
Summed viewership score -0.09 0.15 -0.07 -0.65
Difference viewership score -0.26 0.26 -0.11 -1.00
Percentage required for judgment of guilt .16**
Summed viewership score -0.31 0.09 -0.37 -3.44**
Difference viewership score 0.24 0.16 0.15 1.43
Familiarity with investigators’ tasks .05
Summed viewership score 0.02 0.01 0.19 1.73†
Difference viewership score 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.96
Familiarity with scientists’ tasks .06
Summed viewership score 0.02 0.01 0.21 1.90†
Difference viewership score 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.85
Satisfaction with prosecution’s evidence .07†
Summed viewership score 0.01 0.01 0.17 1.54
Difference viewership score 0.03 0.02 0.19 1.72†
Satisfaction with defense’s evidence .01
Summed viewership score 0.00 0.01 -0.05 -0.43
Difference viewership score 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.90
Note. †p < .10. **p < .01.
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 557

DISCUSSION
Considering that the current study used an actual juror sample in a
courthouse setting with an ecologically-valid trial stimulus, and in light
of the highly limited previous empirical evidence for a relationship
between forensic television program viewership and juror judgments of
defendant guilt, these findings are important because they lend at least
partial support for the strong prosecutor’s subtype of the CSI effect (Cole
& Dioso-Villa, 2007, 2009) in real jurors. Using a forensic fiction-
documentary viewership difference score to divide participants into two
groups, heavier fiction viewers were indeed more likely to acquit the
defendant in a murder trial and perceived him as less guilty compared to
lighter viewers. However, the proposed route by which heavy fiction-
viewing jurors make their decisions according to the strong prosecutor’s
effect—in response to dissatisfaction with perceived substandard
scientific evidence—was not supported here; there was only a marginally
significant positive correlation between the fiction-documentary
viewership difference score and mention of any scientific evidence at all
as a verdict reason, and neither viewership group more frequently cited
DNA or any scientific evidence as a verdict reason, or indicated greater
satisfaction with either the prosecution’s or defense’s evidence.
One key methodological difference between the current study and
prior CSI effect research is the distinction between fiction and
documentary-style sub-genre viewership, using them in relation to one
another, which had not been done previously. This was fruitful; while the
majority of prior research using single crime show genre viewership
measures has failed to detect any relationships between viewership and
guilt decisions, the difference score viewership measure in the present
study was a comparatively more sensitive predictor of guilt decisions;
this is consistent with predictions based upon the strong prosecutor’s
subtype of the CSI effect in which heavy fiction viewership will predict
acquittals.
To illustrate further the difference between the summed and
difference viewership scores, consider the relationships between these
scores with the outcome variables in Tables 3 and 4. Perhaps most
importantly, the difference score measure appeared to relate to the
outcome variables in the hypothesized directions according to the strong
prosecutor’s effect more consistently than the summed score. More
specifically, the beta weight of the difference score was marginally
significant in predicting the verdict scale in the hypothesized direction
while taking the summed score’s contribution into account. In addition,
the correlation of the difference score with mention of any scientific
evidence as a verdict reason was marginally significant in the
hypothesized direction. One counterintuitive finding, however, was that
558 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

the correlation of the difference score and satisfaction with the

prosecution’s evidence was marginally significant opposite the direction
hypothesized. Comparatively, not only was the summed score
uncorrelated with the verdict scale, but some of the relationships of the
summed score with other outcome variables were puzzling and
counterintuitive. For example, while the correlations and beta weights
between the summed score and perceived familiarity with forensic
investigators’ and scientists’ tasks were marginally significant in the
hypothesized direction, the summed score was negatively associated with
percentage certainty required to find defendant guilt in general (the
reasonable doubt standard), meaning that heavier viewership of both sub-
genres was associated with a lower general threshold required to render a
guilty verdict. Furthermore, the correlation between the summed score
and mention of DNA evidence as a verdict reason was marginally
significant in the opposite direction as hypothesized. In light of these
differences and considering that prior CSI effect research using the
summed viewership measure has generally failed to predict guilt
decisions, it appears that using the summed viewership measure makes
little sense. Thus, separate consideration of crime program sub-genres in
context may be important in determining whether viewership is related to
juror guilt decisions.
Cultivation theory may be helpful as a potential explanation for these
findings. Again, as Morgan and Shanahan (2010) have recently
suggested, cultivation processes involved in one or more genres of
viewership should be considered in the context of overall program
viewership. Perhaps the images and messages about forensic science and
criminal investigative procedures conveyed in these two main sub-genres
of crime programs are distinctive enough from each other to promote
different cultivation processes. Furthermore, perhaps those processes in
documentary-style programs moderate those in fictional programs, as
observed in the differences in acquittal rates between the viewership
groups. It would seem that—consistent with the strong prosecutor’s
effect subtype—dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s evidence would
lead to heavier fiction viewers’ acquittals, and thus cultivation processes
in fiction programs would involve more distorted perceptions of the
apparent infallibility of forensic scientific evidence, while those involved
in documentary-style programs would be more realistic. Nonetheless, if
separate sub-genre cultivation processes are occurring, the nature of each
is yet unclear; while prior CSI effect research has indicated that crime
program viewership is related to beliefs and expectations about scientific
evidence (Baskin & Sommers, 2010; Brewer & Ley, 2010; Hayes-Smith
& Levett, 2011; Schweitzer & Saks, 2007; Shelton, Kim, & Barak, 2007;
Smith, Patry, & Stinson, 2007), the results of the current study did not
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 559

support this contention. On the other hand, clearly the current study made
use of a single criminal trial video stimulus which presented a single type
of scientific evidence (i.e., DNA) in a specific way. While recent
research has suggested that juries regard DNA evidence as among the
most reliable forms of scientific evidence (e.g., Wheate, 2010), juries
respond differently to various types of criminal trials and evidence, and
thus the results may have varied if another trial stimulus using a less
reliable type of evidence was presented.
The current study is not without its limitations. First, the use of a
homogenous convenience sample of mainly Caucasian jurors may limit
the applicability of the results to other, more diverse jury populations.
Nonetheless, there is some convincing evidence that minorities have been
significantly and consistently underrepresented on jury panels in both the
state and federal courts for many years despite efforts to diversify them
(e.g., Fukurai, Butler, & Krooth, 1993; Fukurai & Krooth, 2003).
Second, the television viewing measures were based on self-report,
which could not be avoided but naturally pose a host of reliability and
validity issues. Third, the current study used only initial verdict
preference measures, which jury deliberation processes indeed affect
(Bothwell, 1999). Lastly, this study may have been underpowered;
considering that the difference score viewership measure was only
marginally correlated with the verdict scale score and with mention of
scientific evidence as a verdict reason in the hypothesized directions,
perhaps an increased sample size may have revealed significant
relationships among these variables.
Several recommendations for future research are raised here. First,
no prior published study has utilized a fiction-documentary viewership
difference score to test the strong prosecutor’s subtype of the CSI effect,
and therefore replication of these results is essential. It appears that
summed fiction and documentary and fiction-documentary difference
score viewership measures differ in their relationships with other
important outcome variables, and therefore determining which
viewership measure or measures are most strongly related to measures of
guilt decisions is critical for future research. Furthermore, if fictional
programs do involve cultivation processes including unrealistically high
expectations of the availability and utility of scientific evidence, and if
these distorted perceptions do lead to differences in guilt decisions, it
should also be noted that heavier relative fiction-to-documentary
viewership was associated with acquittals. This occurred despite the fact
that viewers rated fiction programs as less realistic than documentary-
style programs, similar to Oliver and Armstrong’s (1995) findings for
these two sub-genres in pre-CSI era crime show programming. In other
words, awareness of the decreased realism of fictional programs relative
560 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

to documentary-style programs did not appear to influence the process

which led to more acquittals among the heavier viewers. Thus, future
research might explore potential cognitive biases that may be involved in
the relationship between forensic fiction television viewership and juror
decision-making.
In addition, future studies should continue to investigate potential
moderators of any CSI effect. To date, only three prior studies have made
such attempts with limited success, including various demographic
variables (Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009), amount of forensic evidence
(Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011), and need for cognition (Mancini, 2011)
as potential moderators of forensic television viewership measures. The
first two of these studies used single genre, summed viewership measures
and the third used a ratio measure. In light of the current study’s
findings—with the fiction-documentary viewership difference score
measure predicting guilt decisions despite lower realism ratings for
fictional programs—it may be worthwhile to investigate how these or
other moderator variables interact with difference score viewership
measures to help explain this potential influence of fictional program
viewing. Finally, future studies may include a deliberation component to
determine any potential relationship between viewership and verdict
following the deliberation process.
To conclude, the current study’s findings suggest that there may be
some important differences in viewer variables and/or in cultivation
processes among those who tend to watch one crime show sub-genre
more than the other, and these differences may influence juror decision-
making, including those of defendant guilt. If this is true, then the strong
prosecutor’s subtype of the CSI effect may indeed exist in actual jurors.
The potential impact of media on juror decision-making is complex and
as yet only poorly understood, but it may have serious implications for
the criminal justice system. Clearly, replication of the current study’s
results is key, and further investigation into identifying specific variables
that may moderate the CSI effect is highly recommended.

REFERENCES
Baskin, D. R. & Sommers, I. B. (2010). Crime-show-viewing habits and public
attitudes toward forensic science: The “CSI effect” revisited. The Justice
System Journal, 31, 97-113.
Bibel, S. (2012, June 14). 'CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' is the most-watched
show in the world—again!” [Web log message.] Retrieved from
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/14/csi-crime-scene-investigation-
is-the-most-watched-show-in-the-world-2/138212/
Bilandzic, H., Busselle, R., Spitzner, F., Kalch, A., & Reich, S. (2009, May).
The CSI cultivation effect: The influences of need for closure and narrative
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 561

engageability. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Conference of the

International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Blankstein, A. & Guccione, J. (2005, March 22). The Blake verdict and the
“CSI effect.” Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles. Chicago
tribune.com/2005-03-22/features/0503220030_1_blake-case-csi-effect-bonny
-lee-bakley
Bothwell, R. K. (1999). Social cognition in the courtroom. In W. F. Abbott & J.
Batt (Eds.), A handbook of jury research (pp. 17:1-17:45). Philadelphia:
American Law Institute.
Brewer, P. R. & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and public perceptions of DNA
evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93-117.
Byers, M. & Johnson, V. M. (2009). The CSI effect: Television, crime, and
governance. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Cediel, A. & Bergman, L. (Writers and producers). (2012). The real “CSI”
[Television series episode]. In D. Fanning (Executive producer), Frontline.
Boston, MA: WGBH Educational Foundation.
Cole, S.A. & Dioso-Villa, R. (2009). Investigating the “CSI effect” effect: Media
and litigation crisis in criminal law. Stanford Law Review, 61, 1335-1374.
Cole, S. A. & Dioso-Villa, R. (2011). Should judges worry about the “CSI
effect”? Court Review, 47, 20-31.
Dossche, D. & Van den Bulck, J. (2010, June). 30+ years of cultivation surveys:
A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, Singapore.
Eschholz, S., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2003). Television and fear of crime:
Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived
neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395-415.
Fukurai, H., Butler, E. W., & Krooth, R. (1993). Race and the jury: Racial
disenfranchisement and the search for justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Fukurai, H. & Krooth, R. (2003). Race in the jury box: Affirmative action in jury
selection. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gerbner, G. (1972). Communication and social environment. Scientific American,
227, 152-160.
Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile.
Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The
“mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of
Communication, 30, 10-29.
Glynn, C. J., Huge, M., Reineke, J., Hardy, B., & Shanahan, J. (2007). When
Oprah intervenes: Political correlates of daytime talk show viewing. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 228–244.
Grabe, M. E., & Drew, D. G. (2007). Crime cultivation: Comparisons across
media genres and channels. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51,
147-171.
Hammond, C., Farrar, K., & Jalette, G. (2009, November). The impact of genre
and perceived realism on the cultivation process: A re-examination of
562 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

cultivation theory. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the National
Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Harvey, E. & Derksen, L. (2009). Science fiction or social fact?: An exploratory
content analysis of popular press reports on the CSI effect. In M. Byers & V.
M. Johnson (Eds.), The CSI effect:Television, crime, and governance (pp. 3-
28). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Hayes-Smith, R. M. & Levett, L. M. (2011). Jury’s still out: How television and
crime show viewing influences jurors’ evaluations of evidence. Applied
Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7, 29-46.
Heinrick, J. (2006). Everyone’s an expert: The CSI effect’s negative impact on
juries. The Triple Helix: The International Journal of Science, Society, and
Law, 3, 59-61.
Holmgren, J. A. & Fordham, J. (2011). The CSI effect and the Canadian and
Australian jury. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, S63-S71.
Huey, L. (2010). “I’ve seen this on CSI”: Criminal investigators’ perceptions
about the management of public expectations in the field. Crime, Media,
Culture, 6, 49-68.
Kim, Y. S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E. (2009). Examining the “CSI-effect” in
the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate
and path analyses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 452-460.
Kubic, K. N., & Chory, R. M. (2007). Exposure to television makeover programs
and perceptions of self. Communication Research Reports, 24, 283–291.
Mancini, D. E. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: Is it moderated by need for
cognition. North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 155-174.
McDonald, A. F. (2009). Media, crime & culture: An investigation into the CSI
effect. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Publishing Group.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 337-355.
Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with television:
Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 34-49). New York: Routledge.
Nabi, R. L., & Sullivan, J. L. (2001). Does television viewing relate to
engagement in a protective action against crime?: A cultivation analysis from
a theory of reasoned action perspective. Communication Research, 28, 802-
825.
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., &
Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media
effects model for public perceptions of science and technology.
Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
Oliver, M. B., & Armstrong, G. B. (1995). Predictors of viewing and enjoyment
of reality-based and fictional crime shows. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 72, 559-570.
Patry, M., Smith, S. M., & Stinson, V. (2008). The reality of the CSI effect. In J.
Greenberg & C. Elliott (Eds.), Communication in Question: Competing
Perspectives on Controversial Issues in Communication Studies (pp. 291-
298). Scarborough, Ontario: Thompson-Nelson.
 Mancini CSI EFFECT IN ACTUAL JUROR SAMPLE 563

Patten, D. (2013, May 23). Full 2012-2013 TV season series rankings. [Web
log message.] Retrieved from http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/tv-season-
series-rankings-2013-full-list/
Picht, J. (2011, July 7). Casey Anthony and the CSI effect. [Web log message.]
Retrieved from http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood
/stimulus/2011/jul/7/casey-anthony-and-csi-effect/
Podlas, K. (2006). “The CSI effect”: Exposing the media myth. Fordham
Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429-465.
Podlas, K. (2009). The “CSI effect” and other forensic fictions. Loyola of Los
Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 27, 87-125.
Potter, W. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique.
Human Communication Research, 19, 564-601.
Quick, B. (2009). The effects of viewing Grey’s Anatomy on perceptions of
doctors and patient satisfaction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
53, 38–55.
Ramsland, K. (2006). The C.S.I. effect. New York: Berkley Publishing.
Roane, K. T. (2005, April 25). The CSI effect. U.S. News & World Report,
138(15), 48-54.
Robbers, M. L. P. (2008). Blinded by science: The social construction of reality
in forensic television shows and its effect on criminal jury trials. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 19, 84-102.
Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the
cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53, 88-104.
Ryan, K. J. (2011, July 15). The Casey Anthony acquittal: Mismanaging the
“CSI effect.” [Web log message.] Retrieved from http://blogs. discovery.
com/criminal_report/2011/07/the-casey-anthony-acquittal-mismanaging-the-
csi-effect.html
Sarapin, S., & Sparks, G. (2009, October). The CSI effect: Initial evidence and
implications for the jury box. Paper presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of
the International Crime, Media, and Popular Culture Studies Conference,
Terre Haute, IN.
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about
forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science.
Jurimetrics, 47, 357-364.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation
theory and research. London: Cambridge University Press.
Shelton, D. E., Barak, G., & Kim, Y. S. (2011). Studying juror expectations for
scientific evidence: A new model for looking at the CSI myth. Court
Review, 47, 8-18.
Shelton, D. E., Kim, Y. S., & Barak, G. (2007). A study of juror expectations
and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the “CSI effect” exist?
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331-368.
Signorielli, N. (1990). Television’s mean and dangerous world: A continuation
of the cultural indicators perspective. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.),
Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 85-106).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
564 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Smith, S. M., Patry, M. W., & Stinson, V. (2007). But what is the CSI effect?
How crime dramas influence people’s beliefs about forensic evidence. The
Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 5, 187-195.
Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2011). Fact or fiction? The myth and
reality of the CSI effect. Court Review, 47, 4-7.
Stevens, D. J. (2011). Media and criminal justice: The CSI effect. Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Toobin, J. (2007, May 7). The CSI effect. New Yorker, 83, 30-35.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and
justice in reality and fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050-1085.
Wheate, R. (2010). The importance of DNA evidence to juries in criminal trials.
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 14, 129-145.
Woo, H., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Acculturation, cultivation, and daytime TV
talk shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 109–127.

Note: Special thanks to Dr. Peter Hutchinson of the Faculty Development

Committee and Dr. John Smetanka, Vice President of Academic Affairs, at Saint
Vincent College in Latrobe, PA, for providing the funding for this study, and to
the staff of the Jury Commissioners’ Office of the Court of Common Pleas of
Westmoreland County in Greensburg, PA, for their hospitality and willingness to
provide administrative help in data collection.
Copyright of North American Journal of Psychology is the property of North American
Journal of Psychology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.