Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homogeneity of jurors

The majority's influence depends upon their perceived independence

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

A dissenting juror faces considerable social pressure from the majority to acept their position. This article postulated that whether the dissenter conforms or not should be dependent, in part, on attributions made about the cause of the majority's behavior. Specifically, it was hypothesized that to the extent the majority jurors are perceived to be independent of one another, their credibility should be high and the dissenter will likely adopt their position. On the other hand, agreement among homogeneous jurors may be attributed to mutual influence or similar personalities and, therefore, discounted as a reliable source of information about the case. Two studies investigated the relationship between both attributions of independence and social influence, and the homogeneity of the jurors attempting influence. Overall, findingsfrom the studies indicate that the manner in which jurors are initially categorized into social groups affects their perceived independence and persuasive impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, V. L.; & Wilder, D. A. Group categorization and attribution of belief similarity.Small Group Behavior, 1979,10, 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. Opinions and social pressure.Scientific American, 1955,193, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. Social psychology and perception. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.),Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. Common fate, similarity and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities.Behavioral Science, 1958,3, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Holt, R., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, W. S., Higgins, E. T., Karlovac, M., & Ruble, D. N. Use of consensus information in causal attributions as a function of temporal presentation and availability of direct information.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,34, 694–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, H. B., & Greenbaum, C. W. Attitudes toward an agent of uncertainty reduction.Journal of Personality, 1962,30, 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A study in forensic psychology: Petit jury verdicts as a function of jury size.Dissertation Abstracts, 1968,29, 1161b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R. D., & Lowe, C. A. Distinctiveness and consensus: The influence of behavioral information on actor's and observers' attributions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,34, 435–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J. H., Arkin, R. M., Gleason, J. M., & Johnston, S. Effect of expected and observed outcome of an action on the differential causal attributions of actor and observer.Journal of Personality, 1974,42, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C.Interaction and Coalition Realignment in Consensus-Seeking Groups: A Study of Experimental Jury Deliberations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960.

  • Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H.The American Jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.)Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meed, D., Holt, R., & Davis, J. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,34, 282–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. A. The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972,22, 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. III). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Borgida, E. Attribution and the psychology of prediction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 932–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orvis, B. R., Cunningham, J. D., & Kelley, H. H. A closer examination of causal inference: The roles of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 605–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. The role of attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation.American Psychologist, 1976,31, 148–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruble, D. N., & Feldman, N. S. Order of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information and causal attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,34, 930–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. Salience, attention and attributions: Top of the head phenomenon. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 778–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valenti, A., & Downing, L. Differential effects of jury size on verdicts following deliberations as a function of the apparent guilt of a defendant.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 655–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weld, H., & Danzig, A. A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. In R. Simon (Ed.),The Sociology of Law, San Francisco: Chandler, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Harvey, J. H. Do people use consensus information in making causal attributions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977,35, 279–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977,13, 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. Perceiving persons as a group: Effects on attributions of causality and beliefs.Social Psychology, 1978,41, 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams versus Florida (1970)United States Supreme Court Reports,26, 446–486.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Rutgers, USA

    David A. Wilder

Authors
  1. David A. Wilder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported, in part, by the NIH under grant No. 29807 and by the Rutgers University Research Council. I thank John Carroll and Daniel Perlman for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

About this article

Cite this article

Wilder, D.A. Homogeneity of jurors. Law Hum Behav 2, 363–376 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01038988

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01038988

Keywords

Search

Navigation