We investigated the bias accentuation effect of group decision-making. Previous studies have shown that individuals were more likely to endorse the guilty verdict when the prosecution evidence was presented in a temporal order (story condition) than when the same evidence was presented in a nontemporal order (witness condition). We expected that group deliberation would accentuate this biasing effect of evidence order through a majority-wins process. Sixty-six 3-person groups engaged in a mock jury task either in the story or witness condition. As predicted, group deliberation accentuated the difference in the verdict judgments between the two conditions through a majority-wins/leniency asymmetry process. This accentuation effect was not moderated by how juries deliberated (evidence-driven vs. verdict-driven). Some theoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed.
DavisJ. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory ofsocial decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125. doi:10.1037/h0020065
2.
FooteD. H. (1992). From Japan’s death row to freedom. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 1, 11–103.
3.
HansV. P.DoobA. N. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253.
4.
HastieR.KamedaT. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508. doi:10.1037/0033–295x.112.2.494
5.
HastieR.PenningtonN. (1991). Cognitive and social processes in decision making. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 308–327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
HastieR.PenrodS. D.PenningtonN. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
KaplanM. F.MillerL. E. (1978). Reducingthe effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.36.12.1443
8.
KerrN. L.MacCounR. J. (2012). Is the leniency bias really dead? Misinterpreting asymmetry effects in criminal jury deliberation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15, 585–602. doi:10.1177/1368430212441639
9.
KerrN. L.MacCounRKramerG. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.103.4.687
10.
KerrN. L.NiedermeierK.KaplanM. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2855
11.
KerrN. L.TindaleR. S. (2011). Group-based forecasting?: A social psychological analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 14–40. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.02.001
12.
KerwinJ.ShafferD. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162. doi:10.1177/0146167294202002
13.
KoveraM. B.BorgidaE. (2010). Social psychology and law. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 1343–1385). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
KramerG. P.KerrN. L.CarrollJ. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438. doi:10.1007/BF01044220
15.
LondonK.NunezN. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.85.6.932
16.
MacCounR. J. (1990). The emergence of extralegal bias during jury deliberation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 303–314. doi:10.1177/0093854890017003005
17.
MacCounR. J.HastieR. (1986). Effects of immediate vs. delayed polling on mock jury verdicts. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
18.
MacCounR. J.KerrN. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.54.1.21
19.
OstromT. M.PryorJ. B.SimpsonD. D. (1981). The organization of social information. In HigginsE. T.HermanC. P.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 3–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.51.2.242
21.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: The effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521–533. doi:10.1037/0278–7393.14.3.521
22.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.62.2.189
23.
RoenkerD. L.ThompsonC. P.BrownS. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 45–48. doi:10.1037/h0031355
24.
SpieckerS. C.WorthingtonD. L. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdicts and damage awards. Law & Human Behavior, 27, 437–456. doi:10.1023/A:1024041201605
25.
StasserG.KerrN. L.BrayR. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In KerrN. L.BrayR. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York, NY: Academic Press.
26.
TindaleR. S.KamedaT.HinszV. B. (2003). Group decision making. In HoggM. A.CooperJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 381–403). London, UK: Sage.
27.
TindaleR. S.SmithC. M.Dykema-EngbladeA.KluwelK. (2012). Good and bad group performance: Same process—different outcomes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15, 603–618. doi:10.1177/1368430212454928
WinquistJ. R.LarsonJ. R.Jr. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 371–377. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.74.2.371
30.
WolfeM. B. W.PennigntonN. (2000). Memory and judgment: Availability versus explanation-based accounts. Memory & Cognition, 28, 624–634. doi:10.3758/BF03201252
31.
WyerR. S.AdavalR.ColcombeS. J. (2002). Narrative-based representations of social knowledge: Their construction and use in comprehension, memory and judgment. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 131–197). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
