Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in Jury decision making

Communication Monographs

Volumn 65, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 282-307

  Sunwolf, ^a   Seibold, David R ^a  

^a SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bona fide groups; Decision making; Jury; Rules; Structuration

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040681740     PISSN: 03637751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03637759809376455     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
2. Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.
3. Boster, F.J., Hunter, J.E., & Hale, J.L. (1991). An information-processing model of jury decision making. Communication Research, 18, 524-547.
4. Cappella, J.N. (1985). Controlling the floor in conversation. In A.W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 9-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Casper, J.D., & Benedict, K.M. (1993). The influence of outcome information and attitudes on juror decision making in search and seizure cases. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 229-234). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cragan, J.F., & Wright, D.W. (1980). Small group communication research of the 1970's: A synthesis and critique. Central States Speech Journal, 31, 197-213.
7. Cragan, J.F., & Wright, D.W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 41, 212-236.
8. Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.
9. Davis, J.H. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3-38.
10. Davis, J.H., Kameda, T., Parks, C., Stasson, M., & Zimmerman, S. (1989). Some social mechanics of group decision making: The distribution of opinion, polling sequence, and implications for consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1000-1012.
11. Davis, J.H., Kerr, N.L., Atkin, R.S., Holt, R., & Meek, D. (1975). The decision processes of 6-and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1-14.
12. Ellis, D.G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Fisher, B.A. (1986). Leadership: When does the difference make a difference? In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 197-215). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14. Foss, R.D. (1981). Structural effects in simulated jury decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1055-1062.
15. Frey, L.R. (1994a). The call of the field: Studying communication in natural groups. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context (pp. ix-xiv). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Frey, L.R. (1994b). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group Research, 25, 551-557.
17. Frey, L.R. (1996). Remembering and "re-membering": A history of theory and research on communication and group decision making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 19-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Gouran, D.S., & Baird, J.E. (1972). An analysis of distributional and sequential structure in problem-solving and informal group discussions. Speech Monographs, 39, 16-22.
19. Hans, V.P., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum Press.
20. Hare, A.P., Blumberg, H.H., Davies, M.F., & Kent, M.V. (1994). Small group research: A handbook. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Hastie, R. (1993). Models of juror decision making: Introduction. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 3-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hastie, R., Penrod, S.D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Hastings, D. (1995, May 14). Simpson trial turns spotlight on jury system's flaws. Santa Barbara News-Press, 1.
24. James, R. (1959). Status and competence of jurors. The American Journal of Sociology, 64, 563-570.
25. Kadane, J.B. (1993). Sausages and the law: Juror decisions in the much larger justice system. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 65-83). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
27. Kassin, S.M., Smith, V.L., & Tulloch, W.F. (1990). The dynamite charge: Effects on the perceptions and deliberation behavior of mock jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 537-550.
28. Kerr, N.L., Atkin, R.S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R.W., & Davis, J.H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282-294.
29. Kerr, N.L., & Bray, R.M. (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30. Kerr, N.L., & MacCoun, R.J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349-363.
31. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 153-162.
32. Larntz, K. (1975). Reanalysis of Vidmar's data on the effects of decision alternatives on verdicts of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 123-125.
33. Lempert, R.O. (1993). Why do jury research? In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror (pp. 242-254). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Levine, A.M., & Herzberg, S.J. (Producers). (1986). Inside the jury room. In, Frontline. Boston: Frontline.
35. Lipton, J.P., & Garza, R.T. (1977). Responsibility attribution among Mexican-American, Black, and Anglo adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 259-272.
36. MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046-1050.
37. MacCoun, R.J., & Kerr, N.L. (1988). A symmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
38. Miller, G.R., Fontes, N.E., Boster, F.J., & Sunnafrank, M,J. (1983). Methodological issues in legal communication research: What can trial simulations tell us? Communication Monographs, 50, 33-46.
39. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority vs. minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
40. Ng, S.H., Bell, D., & Brooke, M. (1993). Gaining turns and achieving high influence ranking in small conversational groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 265-275.
41. Ninth Circuit Jury Committee (Eds.). (1993). Manual of model civil jury instructions for the Ninth Circuit. St. Paul, MN: West.
42. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explain the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
43. Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1979). Models of jury decision making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462-492.
44. Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1980). A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychological Review, 87, 133-159.
45. Perez, D.A., Hosch, H.M., Ponder, B., & Trejo, G.C. (1993). Ethnicity of defendants and jurors as influences on jury decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1249-1262.
46. Pettus, A.N. (1990). The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations - from the jurors' point of view. Communication Quarterly, 38, 83-97.
47. Poole, M.S. (1990). Do we have any theories of group communication? Communication Studies, 41, 237-247.
48. Poole, M.S., & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1996) Introduction: Communication and group decision making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 3-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
50. Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory building in group decision-making research. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 237-264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51. Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 114-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Potter, W.J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1996). Assessing reliability for multiple coders and multiple nominal judgments. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
53. Propp, K.M., & Kreps, G.L. (1994). A rose by any other name: The vitality of group communication research. Communication Studies, 45, 7-19.
54. Putnam, L.L. (1979). Preference for procedural order in task-oriented small groups. Communication Monographs, 46, 193-218.
55. Putnam, L.L. (1986). Conflict in group decision-making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 175-196). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
56. Putnam, L.L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248-265.
57. Putnam, L.L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups, an alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Reifman, A., Gusick, S.M., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1992). Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539-554.
59. Schönemann, P.H. (1979). Alternative decision schemes for six-person mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 388-398.
60. Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R. (1986). Communication and influence in group decision-making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.) Communication and influence in group decision-making (pp. 133-156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
61. Seibold, D.R., Meyers, R., & Sunwolf. (1996). Communication and influence in group decision-making. In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 242-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. Severance, L.J., & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153-198.
63. Shaw, M.E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
64. Shimanoff, S.B. (1980). Communication ruus: Theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
65. Shimanoff, S.B. (1988). Group interaction via communication rules. In R.S. Cathcart & L.A. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication (5th ed., pp. 50-64). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
66. Simon, R.J. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.
67. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 130 (1940).
68. Smith, V.L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507-536.
69. Smith, V.L., & Kassin, S.M. (1993). Effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 625-643.
70. Stohl, C. (1995). Facilitating bona fide groups: Practice and paradox. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), Innovation in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 325-332). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
71. Stohl, C., & Putnam, L.L. (1994). Group communication in context: Implications for the study of bona fide groups. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 285-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Strodtbeck, F.L., James, R.M., & Hawkins, C. (1957). Social status injury deliberations. American Sociological Review, 22, 713-719.
73. Strodtbeck, F.L., & Lipinski, R.M. (1985). Becoming first among equals: Moral considerations in jury foreman selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 927-936.
74. Strodtbeck, F.L., & Mann, R. (1956). Sex role differentiation injury deliberations. Sociometry, 19, 3-11.
75. Sunwolf. (1993). Changing the way jurors deliberate: Reshaping the individual assumptions jurors make about power and conflict. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL.
76. Sunwolf. (1994). Communication in deadlocked juries: When cross-sections of the community collide. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
77. Sykes, R.E. (1990). Imagining what we might study if we really studied small groups from a speech perspective. Communication Studies, 41, 200-211.
78. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1986).Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes injury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322-347.
79. Thompson, W.C. (1993). Research on jury decision making: The state of the science. In N.J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 203-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Tindale, R.S., & Davis, J.H. (1983). Group decision-making and jury verdicts. In H.H. Blumberg, A.P. Hare, V. Kent, & M.F. Davies (Eds.), Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 9-37). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
81. United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641 (1993).
82. United States v. Leaky, 82 F.3d 624 (1996).
83. United States v. Martinez 14 F.3d 543 (1994).
84. United States v. Morris, 977 F.2d 677 (1992).
85. United States v. Ortiz, 942 F.2d 903 (1991).
86. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785 (1994).
87. Visher, C.A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1-17.
88. Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (1968).