Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation
Jurors' bias for leniency
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6201413 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Robert J Maccoun (0000-0003-0929-4423, RAND Corporation), Norbert L Kerr (0000-0003-0115-0767) |
| Year | 1988 |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 21-33 |
| Publication date | 1988-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3514 • E-ISSN: 1939-1315 |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21 |
| PMID | 3346806 |
| OpenAlex | W2072124670 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 50 |
| References cited | 27 |
Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. We hypothesized that the asymmetry effect was caused by an asymmetric prodefendant standard of proof--the reasonable-doubt standard. In Experiment 2, subjects received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some subjects deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other subjects privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings is discussed
Argument (complex analysis) · Asymmetry · Deliberation · Jury · Political science · Population · Sociology · Verdict · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology
Expressions of Colour-Blind Racism Within All-White and Racially-Heterogeneous Mock Jury Deliberations
Accentuation of bias in jury decision-making
Understanding jurors' judgments in cases involving juvenile defendants
Are the effects of juvenile offender stereotypes maximized or minimized by jury deliberation
Instructions on reasonable doubt
Pretrial publicity
The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory
Science, technology, or the expert witness
Lifting the Veil
The burden of social proof
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors
Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences
Storytelling Rituals in Jury Deliberations
The ecological validity of jury simulations
The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials
Bias in judgment
Group Performance and Decision Making
Intentional or Negligent Homicide? Evidence for Juror Decision Making
Towards a theory of collective phenomena
Effects of Status Difference and Group Size in Group Decision Making
The Plaintiff Bias in Mock Civil Jury Decision Making
The effects of deliberations and religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts
Twelve (not so) angry men
Is the leniency asymmetry really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation
Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making
Scientific inquiry on how groups decide
Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups
On the Virtues of Assuming Minimal Differences in Information Processing in Individuals and Groups
The standard of proof and crime prevention
What do we know about the effectiveness of juror education in rape and serious sexual offence trials
Juror Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities and Decision Making in Criminal Cases
Reputation and behavior of battered women who kill their partners
Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation
Undermining Reasonableness
The effect of rape type and information admissibility on perceptions of rape victims
Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a Simulated Acquaintance Rape Trial
Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance
Procedural influence in small-group decision making
Procedural influence in two-step group decision making
Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups
Effects of straw polls on group decision making
Why we need juror education in rape and serious sexual offence cases
One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Third-party punishment
On predicting minority influence
How Minorities Prevail
Jury decision making
The subtle effects of implicit bias instructions
Facts into faults
Friendship and Conformity in Group Opinions
The American jury
Justice in Social Relations
Choice Shifts and Extreme Behavior
Group polarization
The Effect of Peremptory Challenges on Jury and Verdict
Judgments and Group Discussion
Jurors and Their Verdicts
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks
Group decision and social interaction
Group decision making and social influence
Attitude polarization
The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation
Reducing the effects of juror bias
Hath he suffered enough? Effects of jury dogmatism, defendant similarity, and defendant's pretrial suffering on juridic decisions
Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift
Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries
Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts
Structural effects in simulated jury decision making
Social transition schemes
On the requirements of proof
A social comparison of abilities interpretation of risk-taking behavior
The group polarization phenomenon
Quantifying Burdens of Proof
Rule Departures and Making Law
Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions
Role Playing and the Study of Jury Behavior
| Unique citing works | 50 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,32 |
| Citation span | 1988 - 2026 (39) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 38 |