Verbal aggressiveness and communicator style characteristics of summoned jurors as predictors of actual jury selection

Five Factor Model Personality Traits, Jury Selection, and Case Outcomes in Criminal and Civil Cases

“…Specifically, the defense may tend to strike jurors with low levels of Openness and high levels of Conscientiousness, whereas the prosecution would not be likely to strike these jurors. In addition, Wigley's (1999) findings regarding verbal aggressiveness suggest that jurors with high levels of Extraversion and low levels of Agreeableness will be less likely than other jurors to serve on a jury.…”

“…These descriptors suggest that the FFM traits of Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness might be associated with selection decisions for some attorneys, although the researchers did not examine whether these characteristics were seen as more favorable for the defense, prosecution, or jurors in general. Finally, Wigley (1999) examined the relation between verbal aggressiveness and selection decisions in a sample of 774 jurors, and found that high levels of contentiousness and dominance were associated with being removed from the jury pool. In an FFM framework, jurors with these verbal characteristics would likely be those with high levels of Extraversion and low levels of Agreeableness.…”

Issue Forum: Can we Enhance People's Lives?

“…(2) argumentativeness has its roots in cognitive approach-avoid processes (Infante & Rancer, 1982) and involves decision-making based on criteria (Hample & Dallinger, 1987), whereas verbal aggressiveness is described less in cognitive terms and more in affective terms; (3) the two variables are, usually, considered parts of different factors of McCrae and Costa's (1987;see Blickle, 1997) Big Five Inventory (extraversion includes argumentativeness; neuroticism includes verbal aggressiveness); and (4) in studies including both variables as dependent variables, verbal aggressiveness frequently differentiates group membership on the independent variable under investigation better than the differentiation afforded by the argumentativeness variable alone (e.g., in jury selection, Wigley, , 1999; level of similarity on trait to parents, Martin & Anderson, 1997; authoritative vs. authoritarian parenting, Bayer & Cegala, 1992) (i.e., they differentiate levels of the independent variable different ways).…”