Significant individual variation is observed in how people reason as jurors. At the satisficing end ofa continuum we identify, the juror draws on evidence selectively to construct a single story of what happened, with no acknowledgment ofdiscrepant evidence or alternative possibilities. A contrasting theory-evidence coordination mode of processing entails construction of multiple theories (story-verdict constellations) that are evaluated against the evidence and against alternatives. Individual differences influence task outcome, the satisficing mode being associated with more extreme verdict choices and very high certainty.The juror task is one of the most cognitivelycomplex tasks that ordinary citizens are routinely asked to perform. It is also one of the most socially significant. Recent research has advanced understanding of the cognitive processes involved. In particular, Pennington and Hastie (1993) have made an impressive case for their story model of juror reasoning. Of available models, it is the most elaborated and explicit in terms of specifying the cognitive processes involved and has the most extensive body of empirical evidence to support it. In the present research, we extend their work, focusing on the question of individual variability. Initial efforts to investigate the cognitive processes involved in juror reasoning have been centered appropriately on characterizing in general terms how jurors reason: Could a model be constructed to describe the cognitive processes of any juror engaged in the task? Here, we ask whether individual differences can be identified; in particular, we are interested in differences in how well jurors reason. We thus address

How is life different for someone who grows up with a sibling who has mental retardation? In this phenomenological case study, I profile the life experiences of a 39-year-old woman as sibling to a 35-year-old man with Down syndrome, using her own words as she explored her sibling experience and how this relationship shaped her identity, experiences, and life choices. Emerging themes, including her self-perception and perception of family members, her identity formation, and the impact of the experience are discussed. A number of possible variables for future quantitative research are suggested based on her experiences, including increased empathy in typically developing siblings and the sibling with disability as a barometer of other people's traits and their impact on the formation of other significant relationships.

Juror reasoning and verdict choice have been explored variously as functions of argument skill and the overall story representation of the evidence on which verdict choices are based. This study investigates the proportion of testimony covered in the justification of a verdict choice and its relationship with argument skill, narrative explanation or evidence-based argument, and certainty about verdict choice. Each of these variables was also compared with the verdict choice. People serving jury duty justified verdict choices in two abridged jury trials. Individuals were consistent in the relative amount of evidence used in both trials. Argument skills, evidence evaluation type, and evidence synthesis type all accounted for variance in the amount of evidence covered. Evidence coverage, along with argument skills, predicted verdict choice. As expected, those most certain about verdict choice did not use the most evidence. Implications regarding mediating factors in story construction and juror decision making are discussed.