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

Abstract

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.

Social influence in groups.

“…Members who are more similar, on average, to other members in preference are predicted by the model to be considerably more influential than are members who hold more dissimilar positions. Davis et al (1997) and Hulbert, Parks, Chen, Nam, and Davis (1999) found support for the social judgment scheme model in mock civil trial studies determining plaintiff compensation. Further evidence comes from the relative accuracy of median as opposed to averaging models of group judgment (Black, 1958).…”

The effect of victim race on jurors’ perceptions of lethal use of force

“…However, due to my small sample size, this pattern must be interpreted with caution. Similar results have been demonstrated by other jury researchers (e.g., Hulbert et al, 1999;Lynch & Haney, 2009;MacCoun, 1990). For example, Lynch and Haney (2009) also found that deliberation exacerbated racial bias in a mock jury study involving simulated capital trials.…”

“…A number of other predictor variables, such as authoritarianism and BJW, were also only significantly related to post-deliberation verdicts. Although this pattern conflicts with some research that suggests deliberation can correct biased decision-making (Kaplan & Miller, 1978;London & Nuñez, 2000), it complements other studies which have found that deliberation strengthens jurors' bias (Hulbert et al, 1999;Lynch & Haney, 2009;. Haegerich and colleagues (2013) suggest that accentuated bias following jury deliberation may be due to the group polarization effect (Bray & Noble, 1978;Myers & Kaplan, 1976;Myers & Lamm, 1976).…”

Moral Psychology as a Necessary Bridge Between Social Cognition and Law

“…For instance, using the methodology from Young and Durwin's (2013) study, jurors could be asked whether they agree that "some things are just morally right or wrong, good or bad, wherever you happen to be from in the world" and then, immediately afterwards, whether they think that prejudice is wrong. Group dynamics can lead individual jurors to conform to the opinion expressed by the majority during jury deliberation (e.g., Son et al, 2019), and there is some evidence that group discussion can exacerbate bias in the jury deliberation process (e.g., Hulbert, Parks, Chen, Nam, & Davis, 1999). As such, it is possible that the prejudiced opinion of one juror may "spread" to other jurors during the jury deliberation process.…”