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 161
- Downloads 0
Limited resources or limited luck? Why people perceive an illusory negative correlation between the outcomes of choice options despite unequivocal evidence for independence
When people learn of the outcome of an option they did not choose (the alternative outcome) before they know their own outcome, they see an illusory negative correlation between the two outcomes, the Alternative Omen Eff...
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...
Dishonest helping and harming after (un)fair treatment
People experience fair and unfair treatment daily, and at times may react by breaking ethical rules and lying. Here, we assess the extent to which individuals engage in dishonest behavior aimed at helping or harming othe...
Stepwise training supports strategic second-order theory of mind
People model other people’s mental states in order to understand and predict their behavior. Sometimes they model what others think about them as well: “He thinks that I intend to stop.” Such second-order theory of mind...
The effect of perceived advantage and disadvantage on the variability and stability of efficacy beliefs
We examined the effect of perceptions of advantage and disadvantage on the variability and stability of efficacy beliefs in a competition. Perceptions of advantageous or disadvantageous opening position were experimental...