Focus groups are widely used in qualitative research. Recently, focus groups that are held online have become increasingly popular despite the objection by some researchers that the Internet is a poor medium for focus group research. The present study was conducted to reveal differences in the characteristics of focus group discussions in the online and face-to-face formats. Participants in 4 online focus groups and 4 face-to-face focus groups discussed their opinions about several health-related Web sites. Statistical analysis of the transcripts suggested that online participants tended to contribute shorter comments and were more likely to say just a few words of agreement. In the online focus groups, participation levels tended to be more uniform; in the face-to-face groups, some participants tended to contribute a disproportionately large number of words, whereas other participants were relatively silent. The results suggest different roles for online and face-to-face focus groups in qualitative research.
The consensus among authors in the area of juridic decision making is that trial jurors often readily disregard judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible evidence. Perhaps, however, the moderating influence of a key methodological variable-the presence or absence of group deliberations-has been overlooked by those making this assertion. It was hypothesized that mock juries (who participate in deliberations) would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to ignore inadmissible testimony than mock jurors (responding individually, without deliberations). Results supported this hypothesis.
Jury nullification instructions give jurors permission to disregard a law if they feet that its strict application would result in an unjust verdict. In a jury simulation, dogmatic and nondog matic juries were given either standard or null fication instruc tions by the judge after hearing a euthanasia trial. Because of their alleged respect for and reliance on the pronouncements of authority figures, it was hypothesized that dogmatic juries would be more influenced than nondogmalic juries by the type of judge's instructions they received. Results from verdicts rendered, content analyses of jury deliberations, and postexperimental questionnaire data supported this hypothesis. Some implications of these outcomes are discussed.
Juries differing in dogmatism assessed the culpability of a defendant who had sold heroin to an undercover police officer and pled entrapment as his legal defense. The extenuating circumstances surrounding the drug sale provided either a reasonably compelling justification (high extenuating circumstances) or minimal justification (low extenuating circumstances) for an entrapment plea. Because of their alleged respect for and reliance on the pronouncements of authority figures, it was hypothesized that dogmatic juries would be more influenced than nondogmatic juries by the judge's charge about the meaning of entrapment (which, in this case, focused on the propriety of police conduct). Analyses of the jury deliberations, the decisions rendered, and postexperimental questionnaire data supported this hypothesis. Some implications of these outcomes are discussed.
Responses to survey questions are assumed to be based on what respondents can actually draw from memory. For example, if respondents report engaging in some behavior a certain number of times, we assume that a substantive answer reflects what they really know. Conversely, when respondents say that they "don't know" (DK) the answer, it is believed that their response reflects a lack of memory relevant to the question. However, survey responding is now understood to be a highly complex process. In this article, we propose a framework to account for the kind of reports made by respondents to a survey. The framework holds that respondent reports are based on three factors: what the respondent actually knows (the person's "cognitive state"); whether the respondent believes that the potential answer meets the requirements of the question (an "adequacy judgement"); and whether the respondent chooses to provide this answer (the person's "communicative intent"). Subsequently, the article examines how relevant findings in the literature support the framework, and then evaluates the assumptions made about cognitive states in light of the results of two experiments. The literature and research presented demonstrate that survey responding can be accounted for by a framework that assumes responding is based on certain key cognitive processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.