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

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.

[1]  D. Myers,et al.  Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes , 1970, Science.

[2]  Robert W. Holt,et al.  Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. , 1976 .

[3]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. , 1987 .

[4]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making , 1990 .

[5]  N. Kerr,et al.  Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[7]  Johannes A. Zuber,et al.  Choice shift and group polarization : an analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes , 1992 .

[8]  Norbert L. Kerr,et al.  Group position as a function of member attitudes. Choice shift effects from the perspective of social decision scheme theory. , 1975 .

[9]  I. Horowitz,et al.  Nominal and Interactive Groups: Effects of Preinstruction and Deliberations on Decisions and Evidence Recall in Complex Trials , 1995 .

[10]  Dennis H. Nagao,et al.  Some implications of temporal drift in social parameters , 1980 .

[11]  J. H. Davis,et al.  Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. , 1988 .

[12]  Spyros Makridakis,et al.  Factors affecting judgmental forecasts and confidence intervals , 1989 .

[13]  D. Bem,et al.  Group influence on individual risk taking. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[14]  J. H. Davis,et al.  Quantitative Decisions by Groups and Individuals: Voting Procedures and Monetary Awards by Mock Civil Juries , 1993 .

[15]  Scott T. Allison,et al.  Impact of a group decision on perception of one's own and others' attitudes. , 1987 .

[16]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LEVEL OF RISK TAKING IN GROUPS. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[17]  Craig E. Spitzer,et al.  The effects of consensus requirements and multiple decisions on mock juror verdict preferences , 1981 .

[18]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[19]  R. MacCoun.  Getting Inside the Black Box: Toward A Better Understanding of Civil Jury Behavior , 1987 .

[20]  Wing Tung Au,et al.  Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries , 1997 .

[21]  Scott T. Allison,et al.  Group decisions as social inference heuristics. , 1990 .