The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 174-179

  Salerno, Jessica M ^a,b,c   Diamond, Shari Seidman ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; RECALL; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MENTAL RECALL; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954672048     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.174     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure s̈ 22.4 (2007).
2. Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Bryner, S., & Thomas, R. L. (1997). A comparison of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1176-1189.
3. Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., Clavet, G., & Seelau, E. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law & Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
4. Castore, C. H. (1972). Group discussion and prediscussion assessment of preferences in the risky shift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 161-167.
5. Chapman, G., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519-540.
6. Clark, S. E., Hori, A., Puthnam, A., & Martin, T. P. (2000). Group collaboration in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1578-1588.
7. Dann, B. M. (1993). "Learning lessons" and "speaking rights": Creating educated and democratic juries. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1229-1279.
8. 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 & Social Psychology, 32, 1-14.
9. Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 55, 918-926.
10. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 622-727.
11. Devine, D. J., Olafson, K. M., Jarvis, L. L., Bott, J. P., Clayton, L. D., & Wolfe, J. M. T. (2004). Explaining jury verdicts: Is leniency bias for real? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2069-2098.
12. Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law & Society Review, 26, 513-557.
13. Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224-232.
14. Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., & Murphy, B. (2006). Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil jury. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 201-230.
15. Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., Murphy, B., & Smith, S. (2006). Juror questions during trial: A window into juror thinking. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 1927-1972.
16. Diamond, S. S., & Vidmar, N. (2001). Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1857-1915.
17. Diamond, S. S., Vidmar, N., Rose, M. R., Ellis, L., & Murphy, B. (2003). Jury discussions during civil trials: Studying an Arizona innovation. University of Arizona Law Review, 45, 1-81.
18. Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 813-825.
19. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
20. ForsterLee, L., Kent, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (2005). The cognitive effects of jury aids on decision-making in complex civil litigation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 867-884.
21. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
22. Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (2002). Are hung juries a problem? Retrieved from The National Center for State Courts: www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_Juries_HungJuriesProblemPub.pdf.
23. Hastie, R. (Ed.) (1993). Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Hertel, G., Neuhof, J., Theuer, T., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in small groups: Does positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition & Emotion, 14, 441-472.
26. Johnson V. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972).
27. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
29. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
30. Knoblich, G., & Jordan, J. S. (2003). Action coordination in groups and individuals: Learning anticipatory control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1006-1016.
31. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
32. MacCoun, R., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
33. Maki, R. H., Weigold, A., & Arellano, A. (2008). False memory for associated word lists in individuals and collaborating groups. Memory & Cognition, 36, 598-603.
34. Nemeth, C. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38-56.
35. Ohtsubo, Y. (2005). Should information be redundantly distributed among group members? Effective use of group memory in collaborative problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1219-1233.
36. Pritchard, M., & Keenan, J. (2002). Does jury deliberation really improve jurors' memories? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 589-601.
37. Reimer, T., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2004). The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cognitive Science, 28, 1009-1029.
38. Reysen, M. B. (2003). The effects of social pressure on group recall. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1163-1168.
39. Ruva, C., McEvoy, C., & Bryant, J. B. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 45-67.
40. Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
41. Salerno, J. M., & McCauley, M. R. (2009). Mock jurors' judgments about opposing scientific experts: Do cross-examination, deliberation, and need for cognition matter? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 27, 37-60.
42. Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 175-195.
43. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: The severity shift. Columbia Law Review, 100, 1139-1175.
44. S.E.C. v. Koenig, 557 F. 3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009).
45. Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 11, 37-51.
46. Spellman, B. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2010). Credible testimony in and out of court. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 168-173.
47. Tenney, E. R., MacCoun, R. J., Spellman, B. A., & Hastie, R. (2007). Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science, 18, 46-50.
48. Thorley, C., & Dewhurst, S. A. (2007). Collaborative false recall in the DRM procedure: Effects of group size and group pressure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 867-881.
49. Thorley, C., & Dewhurst, S. A. (2009). False and veridical collaborative recognition. Memory, 17, 17-25.
50. Walther, E., Bless, H., Strack, F., Rackstraw, P., Wagner, D., & Werth, L. (2002). Conformity effects in memory as a function of group size, dissenters, and uncertainty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 793-810.
51. Weldon, M. S., Blair, C., & Huebsch, P. D. (2000). Group remembering: Does social loafing underlie collaborative inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1568-1577.
52. Wheatmann, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 167-183.
53. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., McDermott, C., & McLaren, J. (2000). Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: Is active generation of elaborations critical? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 19-30.