Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries

Davis, James H.; Kerr, Norbert L.; Stasser, Garold; Meek, David; Holt, Robert W.

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90035-6

Cited by 59 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Juries without a two-thirds majority typically are either unable to cane to a decision ("hang") or give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit (e.g., Davis, Kerr, Atkin, Holt, & Meek, 1975;Davis, Kerr, Stasser, Meek, & Holt, 1977;Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1984;Kerr et al, 1976;Maccoun & Kerr, 1988). Jury decisions are judgmental tasks because conviction or acquital is typically a matter of the more credible and persuasive scenario rather than a demonstrably correct response (Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1984).…”

Section: Collective Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Collective Induction

Laughlin¹

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Collective Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Collective Induction

Laughlin¹

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The domain of this review then is those studies where individuals working together on a group product were contrasted with individuals working separately on individual products. This delineation excluded social facilitation articles that reported only individual measures, risky shift studies that reported individual measures before and/or after group interaction, studies of mock juries that used individual scores to predict group outcome (see Davis, 1980;Davis, Kerr, Stasser, Meek, & Holt, 1977;Penrod & Hastie, 1979), and many articles related to the analysis of task dimensions (see Davis, 1969a;Duncan, 1959;Guilford, 1956;Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973;McGrath & Altaian, 1966;Steiner, 1972;Zajonc & Taylor, 1963r). Psychotherapy research was omitted for lack of a group goal when individual objectives were established for each member (see Hartman, 1979;Lorge et al, 1958, p. 340).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?

Hill

1982

Psychological Bulletin

755

509

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental comparisons of groups and individuals were analyzed on four dimensions: task, process, individual differences, and methodology. A standardized terminology based on Lorge, Fox, Davitz, and Brenner was developed to preserve operational definitions in the comparisons of (a) group versus individual, (b) group versus the most competent individual in an aggregate, (c) group versus pooled responses of an aggregate, and (d) group versus math models of performance. Research supported Steiner's theory of process loss but also suggested evidence for process gain. To avoid confounding of group conditions and subject variables, this review-focused on the results of random assignment of subjects to conditions.

show abstract

“…Freedman and colleagues (1994) failed to replicate these findings across nine separate studies, with over one thousand adult participants. Additionally, in the two studies that had jurors deliberate, the severity of punishment did not affect conviction rates (Davis et al, 1977;Nedermeier, Horowitz, & Kerr, 1999).…”

Section: Standards Of Proof and Jurorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

On informing jurors of potential sanctions.

Teitcher¹,

Scurich²

2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments tested (a) whether jurors make assumptions about the potential punishment that would follow from a guilty verdict, (b) whether those assumptions influence jurors' implicit threshold for reasonable doubt, and (c) whether informing jurors of the potential punishment additionally influences their implicit threshold. Experiment 1 manipulated the alleged crime (grand theft vs. manslaughter) holding all other factors constant, and found that mock jurors (n ϭ 102, recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk) had different expectations about the relative punishments but that these expectations did not affect their implicit threshold for reasonable doubt. Experiment 2 manipulated the alleged crime as well as a judicial description of the potential punishment (e.g., term of incarceration of 2-6 vs. 7-20 years). Again, mock jurors (n ϭ 297) were sensitive to the relative punishments, yet their implicit threshold did not differ on this basis. These findings call into question whether jurors should be informed of the potential punishment if the defendant is convicted, an argument advanced by several legal scholars.

show abstract

Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries

Cited by 59 publications

References 16 publications

A Theory of Collective Induction

A Theory of Collective Induction

Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?

On informing jurors of potential sanctions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About