Much like other forms of civic engagement, many Americans apparently perceive jury “duty” as optional, a circumstance that often has left courts struggling to seat juries. Considering how individuals orient themselves to this often neglected form of civic responsibility facilitates a more holistic understanding of citizen behavior and its antecedents. In this article, we explore the possible effects of resources, barriers and personality traits on jury summons compliance. Data are drawn from a field experiment and corresponding survey conducted in the State of Washington. Results reveal that cultural/linguistic factors act as strong barriers to jury service and that people’s personality traits influence summons compliance. Efforts to reduce resource constraints via heightened juror pay brought no positive effect on compliance rates.
AlfordJ. R.FunkC. L.HibbingJ. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted?American Political Science Review, 99, 153-167.
2.
BoatrightR. G. (1998). Improving citizen response to jury summonses: A report with recommendations. Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society.
3.
BoatrightR. G. (2001). Generational and age-based differences in attitudes toward jury service. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 285-304.
4.
BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
6.
EadesD. (2003). Participation of second language and second dialect speakers in the legal system. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 113-133.
7.
EllisL.DiamondS. S. (2003). Race, diversity, and jury composition. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1033-1058.
8.
FukaraiH.ButlerE. W. (1991). Organization, labor force, and jury representation: Economic excuses and jury participation. Jurimetrics, 32, 49-69.
9.
FukaraiH.ButlerE. W.KroothR. (1993). Race and the jury: Racial disenfranchisement and the search for justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
10.
GastilJ.DeesE. P.WeiserP. (2002). Civic awakening in the jury room: A test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation. Journal of Politics, 64, 585-595.
11.
GastilJ. E.DeesP.WeiserP.MeadeJ. (2008). Jury service and electoral participation: A test of the participation hypothesis. Journal of Politics, 70, 351-367.
12.
GastilJ.DeesE. P.WeiserP. J.SimmonsC. (2010). The jury and democracy how jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
GoldbergL. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
14.
GoldbergL. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
15.
LoshS. C.WassermanA. W.WassermanM. A. (2000). Reluctant jurors: What summons responses reveal about jury duty attitudes. Judicature, 83, 304-310.
16.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
MischelW.ShodaY. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
18.
MondakJ. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MondakJ. J.HalperinK. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 336-362.
20.
MondakJ. J.HibbingM. V.CanacheD.SeligsonM. A.AndersonM. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: an integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104, 85-110.
21.
MooreD. K.MillerK. (2008). Data report 08-21: Juror Pay Study. Pullman, WA: Social & Economic Sciences Research Center.
22.
PervinL. A. (2003). The science of personality (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
RoseM. R.DiamondS. S.MusickM. A. (n.d.). Can’t, d on’t want to, or nobody “Asked?” Jury participation as civic engagement (Unpublished manuscript). University of Austin, TX.
24.
SaundersK. M. (1997). Race and representation in jury service selection. Duquesne Law Review, 36, 49-77.
25.
SheridanC. (2003). “Another White race”: Mexican Americans and the paradox of whiteness in jury selection. Law and History Review, 21, 109-144.
26.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition of jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597-612.
27.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
WaltersM. M.CurridenM. (2005). Are we getting a jury of our peers?Texas Bar Journal, 68, 144-146.
29.
Washington State Center for Court Research. (2008). Juror research project: Report to the Washington State legislature. Olympia, WA: Washington State Center for Court Research, Administrative Office of the Courts.
30.
WinterD. G. (2003). Personality and political behavior. In SearsD. O.HuddyL.JervisR. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 110-45). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
