Order effects in multiple decisions by groups: A demonstration with mock juries and trial procedures.

Abstract

We assessed the effects of the order in which groups undertake different tasks in a multitask situation, using mock juries. Subjects watched a videotaped enactment of a criminal trial involving three joined charges and then, either individually or as members of six-person groups, decided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant on all three charges in one of three orders: descending seriousness, ascending seriousness, or no specified order. The results, concerning the charge of medium seriousness (the middle charge of both specified orders), showed that the proportion of convictions for both individuals and groups was greater in the descending seriousness order. Further analyses showed that conviction on earlier charges significantly increased the relative frequency of conviction on later charges. These findings are discussed in relation both to earlier results that support a contrast explanation of such order effects and to the influence of task order on group decision processes in general.

The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.

“…Agendas may also dictate the set of response alternatives that groups consider and the sequence in which groups consider the alternatives. Moreover, agendas can influence the decisions groups reach (Davis, 1984;Davis, Tindale, Nagao, Hinsz, & Robertson, 1984).…”

Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries

“…Despite an enduring focus on “input‐output” relationships in much of the research on jury decision making, a growing number of deliberation process variables have been examined and found to be associated with jury trial outcomes. For example, jury verdicts have been found to be influenced by the order in which charges are considered (Davis et al. 1984), the deliberation “style” adopted by the jury (Hastie et al.…”

“…Despite an enduring focus on "input-output" relationships in much of the research on jury decision making, a growing number of deliberation process variables have been examined and found to be associated with jury trial outcomes. For example, jury verdicts have been found to be influenced by the order in which charges are considered (Davis et al 1984), the deliberation "style" adopted by the jury (Hastie et al 1983;Kameda 1991), the timing of deliberation polls and the occurrence of local majorities in the voting (Davis et al 1988(Davis et al , 1989Kameda & Sugimori 1995), and the consideration of multiple interpretations of the evidence (Holstein 1985). Further, two studies involved categorizing the content of deliberation and examining the incremental validity of various content codes over and above the first vote.…”

Scientific inquiry on how groups decide: The Davisonian approach

“…Over the next few decades, his work revealed many of the secrets of this rather mysterious decision making group. For example, it shed light on when and why the size and consensus-rule of the jury matter (Davis, Kerr, Atkin, Holt, & Meek, 1975;Kerr et al, 1976), whether it makes any difference in what order juries consider multiple charges (Davis, Tindale, Nagao, Hinsz, & Robertson, 1984), and how minorities, even small minorities of one, like the Henry Fonda character in Twelve Angry Men, sometimes manage to prevail in juries (Davis, Kerr, Stasser, Meek, & Holt, 1977). One very productive line of research focused on how seemingly minor procedural matters-e.g., whether (Davis, Stasson, Ono, & Zimmerman, 1988) or when (Davis, Stasson, Parks, & Hulbert, 1993) straw polls were taken; the order in which sequential polling of jurors was conducted (Davis, Kameda, Parks, Stasson, & Zimmerman, 1989)--could strongly influence the process and product of jury deliberation.…”