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 164
- Downloads 0
Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion
Unstructured interviews are a ubiquitous tool for making screening decisions despite a vast literature suggesting that they have little validity. We sought to establish reasons why people might persist in the illusion th...
Metacognitive judgment and denial of deficit: Evidence from frontotemporal dementia
Patients suffering from the behavioral variant of Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD-b) often exaggerate their abilities. Are those errors in judgment limited to domains in which patients under-perform, or do FTD-b patients ov...
Methodological pitfalls of the Unconscious Thought paradigm
According to Unconscious Thought Theory (UTT: Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), complex decisions are best made after a period of distraction assumed to elicit “unconscious thought”. Over three studies, respectively offeri...
Why do we overestimate others’ willingness to pay?
People typically overestimate how much others are prepared to pay for consumer goods and services. We investigated the extent to which latent beliefs about others’ affluence contribute to this overestimation. In Studies...
Willingness to test for BRCA1/2 in high risk women: Influenced by risk perception and family experience, rather than by objective or subjective numeracy?
Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer can help target prevention programs, and possibly reduce morbidity and mortality. A positive result of BRCA1/2 is a substantial risk factor for breast and ovarian cancer, and...