How do jurors argue with one another?
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2010, Vol 5, Issue 1
Abstract
We asked jurors awaiting trial assignment to listen to a recorded synopsis of an authentic criminal trial and to make a choice among 4 verdict possibilities. Each participant juror then deliberated with another juror whose verdict choice differed, as a microcosm of a full jury’s deliberation. Analysis of the transcripts of these deliberations revealed both characteristics general to the sample and characteristics for which variation appeared across participants. Findings were interpreted in terms of a model of juror reasoning as entailing theory-evidence coordination. More frequently than challenging the other’s statements, we found, a juror agreed with and added to or elaborated them. Epistemological stance — whether knowledge was regarded as absolute and certain or subject to interpretation — predicted several characteristics of discourse. Absolutists were less likely to make reference to the verdict criteria in their discourse. Those who did so, as well as those who made frequent reference to the evidence, were more likely to persuade their discourse partners.
Authors and Affiliations
Joshua Warren, Deanna Kuhn and Michael Weinstock
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677722
- DOI -
- Views 141
- Downloads 0
The relationship between crowd majority and accuracy for binary decisions
We consider the wisdom of the crowd situation in which individuals make binary decisions, and the majority answer is used as the group decision. Using data sets from nine different domains, we examine the relationship be...
Why are gainers more risk seeking
The phenomenon that prior gains may increase people’s willingness to accept risky gambles is named as the house money effect (Thaler and Johnson, 1990). Many studies have shown that the “house money effect” is a robust p...
Using hierarchical Bayesian methods to examine the tools of decision-making
Hierarchical Bayesian methods offer a principled and comprehensive way to relate psychological models to data. Here we use them to model the patterns of information search, stopping and deciding in a simulated binary com...
It pays to be nice, but not really nice: Asymmetric reputations from prosociality across 7 countries
Cultures differ in many important ways, but one trait appears to be universally valued: prosociality. For one’s reputation, around the world, it pays to be nice to others. However, recent research with American participa...
Between me and we: The importance of self-profit versus social justifiability for ethical decision making
Current theories of dishonest behavior suggest that both individual profits and the availability of justifications drive cheating. Although some evidence hints that cheating behavior is most prevalent when both self-prof...