Juror Deliberation

An Information Integration Analysis
  • Martin F. Kaplan
  • Cynthia Schersching
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)


It is acknowledged fact that but a small percentage of criminal cases go to trial, and of these, the proportion heard by juries is not large (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976). Despite the relatively minor role played by juries in our justice system, however, interest in jury functioning remains particularly strong. This may be so for a number of reasons. First, the jury is the prime repository of societal mores (aside, of course, from the legislature) and it infuses social values directly into the justice system (Tocqueville, 1956). This, in fact, is one of the purposes for the creation of juries (Wigmore, 1929; see also Kaplan & Schersching, 1980). Second, the jury is composed of laymen relatively ignorant of the law; this situation provides an opportunity for observing the public’s response to the laws which govern it. Third, the jury processes divergent sets of information from varied sources to reach a single judgment with moral overtones. This is done first on an individual level, and then in a group context following discussion of the information. The psychological processes involved in information processing and in group interaction render the jury highly attractive for the study of social psychological processes, both intra- and interpersonally. This chapter will explore how jurors process the information they receive in the course of the trial, and most particularly, the effects of juror deliberation on the individual juror’s judgment.


Normative Influence Judgment Equation Informational Influence Information Integration Theory Judgment Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, N. H. Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75, 158–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. Krantz, R. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, and P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Freeman, 1974. (a)Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press, 1974. (b).Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. H., and Graesser, C. C. An information integration analysis of attitude change in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apodaca et al. v. Oregon. United States Reports, 1972, 406, 404–415.Google Scholar
  6. Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., and Rosenborough, M. E. Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bumstein, E., and Vinokur, A. Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnstein, E., Vinokur, A., and Trope, Y. Interpersonal comparison vs. persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, J. H. Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R., and Meek, D. The decision processes of band 12-person juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. G. A study of informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebbesen, E. B., and Bowers, R. J. Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in group discussion and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 316–327.Google Scholar
  13. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., and Alfini, J. J. Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it ? Law and Human Behavior, 1977, 1, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feinberg, W. E. Teaching the type I and type II errors: The judicial process. The American Statistician, 1971, 25, 30–32.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, H. Trial by jury: Criteria for convictions, jury size and type I and type II errors. The American Statistician, 1972, 26, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibb, C. A. An experimental approach to the study of leadership. Occupational Psychology, 1951, 25, 233–248.Google Scholar
  17. Kalven, H. Jr., and Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, M. F. The determination of trait redundancy in personality impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 280–282.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, M. F. The modifying effect of stimulus information on the consistency of individual differences in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1972, 6, 213–219.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, M. F. Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of judge and informational components. In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan, M. F. Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry,1977, 40,262–271. (a)Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, M. F. Judgments by juries. In M. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.), Judgment and decision processes in applied settings. New York: Academic Press, 1977. (b).Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, M. F., and Kemmerick, G. D. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan, M. F., and Miller, C. E. Judgments and group discussion: Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry, 1977, 40, 337–343.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan, M. F., and Miller, L. E. Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 1443–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan, M. F., and Schersching, C. Reducing juror bias: An experimental approach. In P. Lipsitt and B. Sales (Eds.), New directions in psycholegal research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, O., Holt, R. W., and Davis, J. H. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laughlin, G. R., and Izzett, R. R. Juror-defendant attitude similarity and choice shift in the jury trial. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Levin, I. P. Information integration in transportation decisions. In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes in applied settings. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  30. McCrystal, J. L. The promise of prerecorded videotape trials. American Bar Association Journal, 1977, 63, 977–979.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, G. R. The effects of videotaped trial materials on juror response. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, and N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  32. Moscovici, S., and Zavalloni, M. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers, D. G., and Kaplan, M. F. Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1976, 2, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers, D. G., and Lamm, H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 602–6627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagel, S. S., and Neef, M. Deductive modeling to determine an optimum jury size and fraction required to convict. Washington University Law Quarterly, 1975, 1975, 933–978.Google Scholar
  36. Nemeth, C. Rules governing jury deliberations: A consideration of recent changes. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, and N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  37. Pruitt, D. G. Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, J. V. Less than unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1967, 58, 211–217.Google Scholar
  39. Saks, M. J., and Ostrom, T. M. Jury size and consensus requirements: The laws of probability vs. the laws of the land. Journal of Contemporary Law, 1975, 1, 163–173.Google Scholar
  40. Shanteau, J. An informational analysis of risky decision making. In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  41. Steindorf, J. Information integration in political choice. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northern Illinois University, 1975.Google Scholar
  42. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  43. Tocqueville, A. de. Democracy in America. New York: New American Library, 1956. Ulmer, S. S. Courts as small and not so small groups. New York: General Learning Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  44. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1976 (97th ed.). Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
  45. Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vinokur, A., and Burnstein, E. Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on groupinduced shifts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, T. G., and Main, E. C. Choice-shifts in political decision making: Federal judges and civil liberties cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 2, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wigmore, J. A programme for the trial of jury trial. Journal of the American Judicature Society, 1929, 12, 166–170.Google Scholar
  49. Williams v. Florida, 9. S.Ct. 1893 (1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin F. Kaplan
    • 1
  • Cynthia Schersching
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDe KalbUSA

Personalised recommendations