Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation

Bibliographic Data

ID6206659
AuthorsNorbert L Kerr (0000-0003-0115-0767, Michigan State University), Robert J Maccoun (0000-0003-0929-4423)
Year1985
Volume48
Issue2
Pages349-363
Publication date1985-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-3514 • E-ISSN: 1939-1315
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037//0022-3514.48.2.349
PMID3981399
OpenAlexW2132279210
LanguageEN
Citations received49
References cited7

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the functional equivalence of different sized juries (at least in the range of 6- to 12-person groups). Several formal models of jury decision making predict that larger juries should hang more often, particularly for very close cases. Failures to confirm this prediction in several previous studies were attributed to inadequate sample sizes or to insufficiently close cases. An experimental simulation study that minimized these problems was undertaken to test the models' prediction. Social decision scheme and social transition scheme analyses permitted comparisons of the decision-making processes of the different-sized mock juries. The effect of the method used to poll group members' verdict preferences was also examined. As group size increased, the observed probability of a hung jury increased significantly. No process differences between 6- and 12-person groups were detected, but 3-person groups did exhibit several process differences from the larger groups. When cases were very close, the likelihood of a hung jury for typically sized juries was found to be lower when the group was polled by secret ballot than when a show-of-hands polling method was used.

Ballot · Deliberation · Group Decision Making · Hung jury · Jury · Political science · Politics · Polling · Process (computing) · Product (mathematics) · Secret ballot · Verdict · Voting · Computer Science · Game Theory and Voting Systems · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Psychology · Social Psychology

  • Expressions of Colour-Blind Racism Within All-White and Racially-Heterogeneous Mock Jury Deliberations

    Open Access•Catalina Hernández, Evelyn Maeder•Race and Social Problems•2026

  • Conservation of Information

    William F Lawle, Stan Rifkin et al.•Structure and Dynamics eJournal…•2010

  • Jury decision making

    Dennis J Devine, Laura D Clayton et al.•Psychology Public Policy and Law•2001

  • Dissensions et consensus

    Serge Moscovici, Willem Doise•Dissensions et consensus•2010

  • Reacting to Rape

    Louise Ellison, Vanessa E Munro•The British Journal of Criminology•2008

  • Using Facebook Messenger versus Groups for News Engagement

    Caroline Murray, Martin J Riedl et al.•Digital Journalism•2024

  • Twelve (not so) angry men

    Open Access•Bridget M Waller, Lorraine Hope et al.•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2011

  • Is the leniency asymmetry really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation

    Open Access•Norbert L Kerr, Robert J Maccoun•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2012

  • Scientific inquiry on how groups decide

    Open Access•Norbert L Kerr, R Scott Tindale•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2012

  • Choosing None of the Above

    Open Access•Bernard A Nijstad•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2008

  • Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty

    Open Access•Christine M Smith, Amanda Dykema-Engblade et al.•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2000

  • Motivated information processing and group decision refusal

    Open Access•Bernard A Nijstad, Jan Oltmanns•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2012

  • A ‘Special’ Delivery? Exploring the Impact of Screens, Live-Links and Video-Recorded Evidence on Mock Juror Deliberation in Rape Trials

    Open Access•Louise Ellison, Vanessa E Munro•Social & Legal Studies•2013

  • The Demon Drink and the Demonized Woman

    Open Access•Emily Finch, Vanessa E Munro•Social & Legal Studies•2007

  • Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation

    Sunwolf Sunwolf, David R Seibold•Communication Monographs•1998

  • Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation

    Robert J Maccoun, Norbert L Kerr•Journal of Personality and Social…•1988

  • On racial diversity and group decision making

    Samuel R Sommer, Samuel R Sommers•Journal of Personality and Social…•2006

  • Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity

    Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1997

  • Procedural influence in small-group decision making

    Tatsuya Kameda•Journal of Personality and Social…•1991

  • Coalition Cabinet Decision Making

    Open Access•Juliet Kaarbo•International Studies Review•2008

  • The burden of social proof

    Robert J Maccoun•Psychological Review•2012

  • Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups

    R Scott Tindale, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1990

  • Procedural influence in two-step group decision making

    Tatsuya Kameda, Shinkichi Sugimori•Journal of Personality and Social…•1995

  • Collective induction

    Patrick R Laughlin•Journal of Personality and Social…•1988

  • Effects of straw polls on group decision making

    Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1988

  • Lifting the Veil

    Open Access•Emily Finch, Vanessa E Munro•Journal of Law and Society•2008

  • The optimal jury size when jury deliberation follows a random walk

    Open Access•Eric Helland, Yaron Raviv•Public Choice•2008

  • A quota jury

    Open Access•Hiroshi Fukurai•Journal of Criminal Justice•1997

  • How Minorities Prevail

    Open Access•William D Crano, Viviane Seyranian•Journal of Social Issues•2009

  • Gaining and losing social support

    Open Access•Norbert L Kerr, Robert J Maccoun et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•1987

  • Taking the easy way out

    Bernard A Nijstad, Silvia C Kaps•Journal of Personality and Social…•2008

  • The American jury

    Harry Kalven•The American jury•1971

  • The psychology of social impact

    Bibb Latane•American Psychologist•1981

  • Some implications of temporal drift in social parameters

    Open Access•Dennis H Nagao, Janet Haggerty Davis et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•1980

  • The social impact of majorities and minorities

    Bibb Latane, Sharon Wolf•Psychological Review•1981

  • Group decision and social interaction

    Janet Haggerty Davis, James H Davis•Psychological Review•1973

  • Social Influence Model

    Sarah Tanford, Steven Penrod•Psychological Bulletin•1984

  • Jury Size and Verdict Consistency

    Open Access•Robert T Roper•Law & Society Review•1980

Unique citing works31
Citations per year1,26
Citation span1987 - 2026 (40)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 46

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae