Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hulbert, L. G.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1, 59-77 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430299021005
© 1999 SAGE Publications

The Plaintiff Bias in Mock Civil Jury Decision Making: Consensus Requirements, Information Format and Amount of Consensus

Lorne G. Hulbert

University of Kent at Canterbury, l.g.hulbert{at}ukc.ac.uk

Craig D. Parks

Washington State University

Xiaoping Chen

Indiana University

Kidok Nam

Military Academy of the Republic of Korea

James H. Davis

University of Illinois

The effect of the normatively based plaintiff bias (favoritism toward an individual suing a corporation) on decision making was assessed for six-person mock juries that made decisions, or merely discussed the case, or for individual jurors. Decision makers also received information in either tables or graphs but there was no effect of this manipulation. It was predicted that groups would award more money than individual decision makers, and that the effect of the plaintiff bias on individual opinions would be strongest when groups discussed but did not decide. Group decisions were higher than individual decisions, and examination of the amount and perception of consensus achieved in groups indicated that the bias affected opinions when groups discussed, but not when groups decided. These results demonstrate the effects of the norm on intermember social influence and opinion change absent similar effects arising from the process of group decision making. The results are integrated with existing research on related issues.

Key Words: group decision making • group process • perceived consensus • social norms

References

  • Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & King, M. C. (1990). Group decisions as social inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.[CrossRef]
  • Bourgeois, M. J., Horowitz, I. A., ForsterLee, L., & Grahe, J. (1995). Nominal and interactive groups: Effects of preinstruction and deliberations on decisions and evidence recall in complex trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 58-67.[CrossRef]
  • Brown, R. (1987). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
  • Davis, J. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgment: A consensus model. In J. H. Davis & E. Witte (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Davis, J. H., Au, W. T., Hulbert, L. G., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). The effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703-718.[CrossRef]
  • Davis, J. H., Holt, R. W., Spitzer, C. E., & Stasser, G. (1981). The effects of consensus requirements and multiple decisions on mock juror verdict preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 1-17.
  • Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 918-926.[CrossRef]
  • Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Parks, C. D., Hulbert, L. G., Kameda, T., Zimmerman, S. K., & Ono, K. (1993). Quantitative decisions by groups and individuals: Voting procedures and monetary awards by mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 326-346.
  • Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kameda, T., & Davis, J. H. (1990). The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 55-76.[CrossRef]
  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effect of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282-294.[CrossRef]
  • Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. K. (1978). Group position as a function of member attitudes: Choice shift effects from the perspective of social decision scheme theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 574-593.
  • Lawrence, M., & Makridakis, S. (1989). Factors affecting judgmental forecasts and confidence intervals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 172-187.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
  • MacCoun, R. J. (1987). Getting inside the black box: Toward a better understanding of civil jury behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corporation.
  • MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influences in mock jury deliberations: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169, 778-779.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Nagao, D. H., & Davis, J. H. (1980). Some implications of temporal drift in social parameters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 479-496.[CrossRef]
  • Turner, J. C., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective behaviour (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, K. R.J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263-274.
  • Worth, L. T., Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1987). Impact of a group decision on perception of one's own and others' attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 673-682.[CrossRef]
  • Zuber, J. A., Crott, H. W., & Werner, J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 50-61.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hulbert, L. G.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?