An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision‐making process

Communication Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 380-396

  Burnett, Ann ^a   Badzinski, Diane M ^b  

^a NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SAINT MARY'S COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument; Jury decision making; Legal communication; Small groups

Indexed keywords

EID: 26844488442     PISSN: 01463373     EISSN: 17464102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01463370009385605     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Allen, M., Mabry, E., and McKelton, D., 1998. Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta‐analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22: 715-731.
2. Badzinski, D.M., and Pettus, A.B., 1994. Nonverbal involvement and sex: Effects on jury decision making. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22: 309-321.
3. Batiza, P., 1999. One lawyer's inside look at the jury. Practical Litigator, 10: 9-18.
4. Bornstein, B.H., 1999. The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?. Law and Human Behavior, 23: 75-91.
5. Boster, F.J., Hunter, J.E., and Hale, J.L., 1991. An information‐processing model of jury decision making. Communication Research, 18: 524-547.
6. Brashers, D., and Meyers, R.A., 1989. Tag‐team argument and group decision‐making: A preliminary investigation. Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference of Argumentation. 1989, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Gronbeck, B.E., pp. 542-550. Speech Communication Association.
7. Bridgeman, D.L., and Marlowe, D., 1979. Jury decision making: An empirical study based on actual felony trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 91-98.
8. Brossmann, B.G., and Canary, D.J., 1990. An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of Nightline. Argumentation, 4: 199-212.
9. Burnett, A., 1999. “ Jury decision‐making processes in the O.J. Simpson criminal and civil trials ”. In The O.J. Simpson trials: Media, rhetoric and the law, Edited by: Schuetz, J., and Lilley, L., 122-138. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
10. Burnstein, E., and Vinokur, A., 1975. What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive‐arguments explanation of choice shifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11: 412-426.
11. Burnstein, E., and Vinokur, A., 1977. Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 315-332.
12. Canary, D.J., Brossman, J.E., Brossman, B.G., and Weger, H., Jr. 1995. Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode‐specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs, 62: 183-212.
13. Canary, D.J., Brossmann, B.G., and Seibold, D.R., 1987. Argument structures in decision‐making groups. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53: 18-37.
14. Canary, D.J., Brossman, B.G., Sillars, A.L., and LoVette, S., 1987. Married couples’ argument structures and sequences: A comparison of satisfied and dissatisfied dyads. Argument and social criticism: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1987, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Wenzel, J.W., pp. 475-484. Speech Communication Association.
15. Canary, D.J., and Sillars, A.L., 1992. “ Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples. ”. In Readings in Argumentation, Edited by: Benoit, W.L., Hample, D., and Benoit, P.J., 737-764. New York: Foris.
16. Canary, D.J., Tanita‐Ratledge, N., and Seibold, D.R., 1982. Argument and group decision‐making: Development of a coding scheme. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention. November1982, Louisville, KY.
17. Canary, D.J., Weger, H., Jr. and Stafford, L., 1991. Couples’ argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55: 159-179.
18. Chambers, H.L., 1998. Reasonable certainty and reasonable doubt. Marquette Law Review, 81: 655-704.
19. Dace, K.L., and Hirokawa, R.Y., 1987. The role of argumentation in group decision‐making efficacy: A functional perspective. Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1987, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Wenzel, J.W., pp. 405-410. Speech Communication Association.
20. Diamond, S.S., 1997. Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21: 561-571.
21. Ellsworth, P.C., and Mauro, R., 1998. “ Psychology and law. ”. In The handbook of social psychology, 4th ed., Edited by: Gilbert, D.T., and Fiske, S.T., Vol. 2, 684-732. Boston: McGraw‐Hill.
22. Garlick, R., and Mongeau, P.A., 1993. Argument quality and group member status as determinants of attitudinal minority influence. Western Journal of Communication, 57: 289-308.
23. Gouran, D.S., 1982. Making decisions in groups: Choices and consequences., Scott: Foresman.
24. Gouran, D.S., 1985. A critical summary of research on the role of argument in decision‐making groups. Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1985, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Cox, J.R., Sillars, M.O., and Walker, G.B., pp. 723-736. Speech Communication Association.
25. Gouran, D.S., 1986. “ Inferential errors, interaction, and group decision‐making. ”. In Communication and group decision making, Edited by: Hirokawa, R.Y., and Poole, M.S., 93-112. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26. Gouran, D.S., 1990. “ Exploiting the predictive potential of structuration theory. ”. In Communication Yearbook, Edited by: Anderson, J. A., Vol. 13, 313-322. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Gouran, D.S., Brown, C., and Henry, D.R., 1978. Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision‐making discussions. Communication Monographs, 45: 51-63.
28. Guetzkow, H., 1950. Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6: 47-58.
29. Hewes, D.C., 1985. Systematic biases in coding social interaction data. Human Communication Research, 11: 554-574.
30. Hirokawa, R.Y., 1980. A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision‐making groups. Communication Monographs, 47: 312-321.
31. Hirokawa, R.Y., 1982. Group communication and problem‐solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30: 134-141.
32. Hirokawa, R.Y., 1983. Group communication and problem‐solving effectiveness II: An exploratory investigation of procedural functions. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47: 59-74.
33. Hirokawa, R.Y., 1985. Discussion procedures and decision‐making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12: 203-224.
34. Hirokawa, R.Y., 1988. Group communication and decision‐making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14: 487-515.
35. Hirokawa, R.Y., and Pace, R., 1983. A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision‐making. Communication Monographs, 50: 363-379.
36. Hirokawa, R.Y., and Scheerhorn, D. R., 1985. The functions of argumentation in group deliberation. Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference in Argumentation. 1985, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Cox, J.R., Sillars, M.O., and Walker, G.B., pp. 737-746. Speech Communication Association.
37. Holstein, J. A., 1985. Jurors interpretations and jury decision‐making. Law and Human Behavior, 9: 83-100.
38. Hong, P.B., 1997. A theory of final argument in civil trials. Hamline Law Review, 21: 31-63.
39. Johnson, R.H., 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument., New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Kalven, H., Jr. and Zeisel, H., 1966. The American Jury., Boston: Little, Brown.
41. Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159-174.
42. Leigh, L.J., 1984. A theory of jury trial advocacy. Utah Law Review,: 763-806.
43. Mabry, E.A., VanLear, C.A., Jackson, J.J., and McPhee, R.D., 1991. Constitutive dimensions of small group argument: Rethinking argument in persuasive arguments theory. Argument in Controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference in Argumentation. 1991, Annandale, VA. Edited by: Parson, D.W., pp. 175-181. Speech Communication Association.
44. MacCoun, R.J., 1990. Experimental research on jury decision‐making. Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 30: 223-233.
45. Manzo, J.F., 1996. Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury deliberations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 107-125.
46. Marder, N.S., 1997. Deliberations and disclosures: A study of post‐verdict interviews of jurors. Iowa Law Review, 82: 465-546.
47. Meyers, R.A., 1989a. Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56: 112-132.
48. Meyers, R.A., 1989b. Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Communication Research, 15: 357-381.
49. Meyers, R.A., 1991. Argument and group decision making research: Implications and applications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. 1991, Atlanta, GA.
50. Meyers, R.A., and Brashers, D.E., 1995. Multi‐stage versus single‐stage coding of small group argument: A preliminary comparative assessment. Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1995. Edited by: Jackson, S., pp. 93-100. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
51. Meyers, R.A., and Brashers, D.E., 1998. Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65: 261-281.
52. Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., and Jerzak, J., 1998. Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument‐outcome links. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. 1998, New York.
53. Meyers, R.A., and Seibold, D.R., 1989. Assessing number of cognitive arguments as a predictor of group shifts: A test and alternative interactional explanation. Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1989. Edited by: Gronbeck, B.E., pp. 576-583. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
54. Meyers, R.A., and Seibold, D.R., 1990. “ Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. ”. In Communication Yearbook, Edited by: Anderson, J.A., Vol. 13, 268-302. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55. Meyers, R.A., Seibold, D.R., and Brashers, D., 1991. Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55: 47-68.
56. Miller, G.R., Fontes, N.E., Boster, F.J., and Sunnafrank, M.J., 1983. Methodological issues in legal communication research: What can trial simulations tell us?. Communication Monographs, 50: 33-46.
57. Moscovici, S., and Zalvalloni, M., 1969. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12: 125-135.
58. O'Keefe, D.J., 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13: 121-128.
59. Pace, R.C., 1985. Patterns of argumentation in high and low consensus discussions. Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/ AFA Conference on Argumentation. 1985. Edited by: Cox, J.R., Sillars, M.O., and Walker, G.B., pp. 770-781. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
60. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R., 1981. Juror decision‐making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89: 246-287.
61. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R., 1986. Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 242-258.
62. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R., 1990. Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision‐making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16: 90-105.
63. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R., 1991. A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13: 519-557.
64. Penrod, S., and Hastie, R., 1980. A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychology Review, 87: 133-159.
65. Pettus, A.B., 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.
66. Pryor, B., Taylor, K.P., Buchanan, R.W., and Strawn, D.U., 1980. An affective‐cognitive consistency explanation for comprehension of standard jury instructions. Communication Monographs, 47: 68-76.
67. Ratledge, N.E.T., 1986. Theoretical and methodological integrity of a structurational scheme for coding argument in decision‐making groups., Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Unpublished doctoral doctoral dissertation
68. Rieke, R.D., and Stutman, R.K., 1990. Communication in legal advocacy., Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
69. Saks, M.J., 1997. What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions?. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 6: 1-53.
70. Sandys, M., and Dillehay, R.C., 1995. First ballot votes, pre‐deliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19: 175-195.
71. Schutz, J.S., 1997. The expert witness and jury comprehension: An expert's perspective. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7: 107-119.
72. Seibold, D.R., McPhee, R. D., Poole, M.S., Tanita, N.E., and Canary, D.J., 1981. Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes. Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1981. Edited by: Ziegelmueller, G., and Rhodes, J., pp. 663-692. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
73. Seibold, D.R., and Meyers, R.A., 1986. “ Communication and influence in decision‐making. ”. In Communication and group decision‐making, Edited by: Hirokawa, R.Y., and Poole, M.S., 133-155. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
74. Semic, B.A., and Canary, D.J., 1997. Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions. Communication Quarterly, 45: 355-378.
75. Simon, R.J., 1980. “ The rationality of jury deliberations and verdicts. ”. In The jury: Its role in American society, Edited by: Simon, R.J., 49-71. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
76. Sobus, M.S., 1998. Commensurability: Understanding jury research and juror information processing. Defense Counsel Journal, 65: 408-413.
77. Sonaike, S.F., 1978. The influence of jury deliberation on juror perception of trial, credibility, and damage awards. Brigham Young University Law Review,: 889-908.
78. Stafford, L., Burggraf, C.S., and Sharkey, W.F., 1987. Conversational memory: The effects of time, recall, mode, and memory expectancies on remembrances of natural conversations. Human Communication Research, 14: 203-229.
79. Stasser, G., Kerr, N.L., and Davis, J.H., 1989. “ Influence processes and consensus models in decision‐making groups. ”. In Psychology of group influence, 2nd ed., Edited by: Paulus, P.B., 279-326. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
80. Sunwolf and Seibold, D.R., 1998. Jurors’ intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65: 282-307.
81. Tanford, S., and Penrod, S., 1986. Jury deliberations:Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16: 322-347.
82. Toulmin, S.E., 1958. The uses of argument., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83. VanLear, C.A., and Mabry, E.A., 1999. Testing contrasting interaction models for discriminating between consensual and dissentient decision‐making groups. Small Group Research, 30: 29-58.
84. Vesper, T.J., 1998. Seinfeld syndrome: The indifference of otherwise nice jurors. Trial, 34: 39-43.
85. Vinokur, A., and Burnstein, E., 1978. Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8: 335-348.