NCJ Number
58081
Journal
SOCIOMETRY Volume: 40 Issue: 3 Dated: (SEPTEMBER 1977) Pages: 262-271
Date Published
1977
Length
10 pages
Annotation
THE EFFECTS OF DISCUSSION ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S JUDGMENT ARE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO JURY DECISIONMAKING. THE INFLUENCE OF BOTH CONCURRING AND OPPOSING OPINIONS ON THAT PERSON'S FINAL INTEGRATED JUDGMENT ARE CONSIDERED.
Abstract
IN THREE EXPERIMENTS, JURORS FIRST HEARD AN INCRIMINATING OR EXONERATING TRIAL, THEN DISCUSSED IT BY EXCHANGING NOTES WITH BOGUS PARTICIPANTS. BOGUS NOTES VARIED THE INCRIMINATING APPEARANCE AND THE REDUNDANCY OF SHARED FACTS, THE NUMBER OF BOGUS JURORS, AND THE PREDISCUSSION JUDGMENT OF BOGUS JURORS. WHERE THE INCRIMINATING/EXONERATING PROPORTION OF FACTS WAS THE OPPOSITE OF BOTH THE TRIAL INCRIMINATING/EXONERATING PROPORTION AND THE FACTS CITED BY THE SUBJECT, POSTDISCUSSION JUDGMENT SHIFTED AWAY FROM EXTREMITY. IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE PROPORTION MATCHED, THE SUBJECT'S JUDGMENT BECAME MORE EXTREME, BUT LESS SO WHEN SHARED FACTS WERE REDUNDANT. NEITHER THE NUMBER OF BOGUS DISCUSSANTS NOR THEIR COMMUNICATED JUDGMENTS HAD AN EFFECT ON JURORS POSTDISCUSSION JUDGMENT. INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCES, THEREFORE, BETTER ACCOUNTED FOR POSTDISCUSSION JUDGMENT SHIFTS THAN DID CONFORMITY TO OTHER'S POSITIONS. UNANIMITY REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD INCREASE CONFORMITY PRESSURES ON THE JURORS' VOTE. THE DECISION RULE, BY PRODUCING NORMATIVE INFLUENCES, MAY AFFECT THE VERY INFORMATION BEING COMMUNICATED DURING DISCUSSION. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--MJW)