Splitting juries of 12 people into smaller groups to discuss court cases could produce better jury decision making, according to a new study.
Credit: Wikipedia
A discussion among 12 people does not allow the whole group to share their ideas, which is the basis of good decisions, according to psychologists at the University of Portsmouth whose research is published this week.
Previous research has shown jurors rarely contribute equally to the decision-making process. Up to a third of jurors do not actively take part during deliberations and up to a quarter might remain completely silent during discussions. Jurors have also reported feeling bullied and intimidated in deliberations and the structure of a group of 12 people discussing something contentious does not necessarily make for a fairer end result. It is also widely reported that in large group discussions sub-groups spontaneously emerge haphazardly as smaller groups break away from the main discussion to start their own discussions.
With the aim of enhancing juror discussions, Dr Bridget Waller and colleagues in the Department of Psychology ran an experiment which manipulated the seating arrangements for jurors deliberating a mock court case. One group of 12 was shown to a room set up as a traditional jury room with 12 chairs around a table. The second group of 12 was shown to a room with chairs clustered in groups of four. Both groups were asked to return a verdict agreed upon by all 12 jury members.
Those who were seated in smaller groups afterwards told researchers that they felt their views had been taken more into consideration by fellow jury members than those who discussed their decision in a traditional group of 12. They also felt less intimidated by other jury members and more able to speak up and discuss their views.
Lead author Dr Waller said: “A group of 12 is an artificially large conversational group, exceeding the limits on how many people can be expected to engage in a single conversation at any one time. This means that some people can contribute a lot less than others.
“As a species we are equipped to operate in groups of a certain size and social interaction becomes increasingly difficult if the group size grows. Although language allows us to interact with multiple others, it has evolved to be no more efficient than it needs to be.
“People naturally split into groups of four during conversations and so asking groups of 12 – such as juries – to make decisions is unlikely to result in all the people being able or willing to contribute to the decision making process. This is counter to scientific research which proves the more information is shared, the better the decisions will be.
“Without an explicit opportunity to talk in smaller groups certain individuals are likely to dominate any large group discussion.
“In our experiments we found that jurors experienced greater shared information when they had the opportunity to talk in small groups, which is the basis of any good decision.
“Every year nearly 400,000 Britons serve as jurors and a key goal in maintaining the integrity of the jury process should be to improve the deliberative process. Active participation of all jurors is necessary to maximise the exchange of information, which results in better decisions. The next step is to see whether asking jurors to discuss in smaller groups before feeding back to the whole group affects the type of decisions people make.
“This study involved a very simple manipulation to make it possible for individuals to contribute to discussions. Understanding how group social processes have evolved is essential for improving the effectiveness of group decision making.”
The research is published in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
Image from 12 Angry Men, 1954, story of a hung jury
A discussion among 12 people does not allow the whole group to share their ideas, which is the basis of good decisions, according to psychologists at the University of Portsmouth whose research is published this week.
Previous research has shown jurors rarely contribute equally to the decision-making process. Up to a third of jurors do not actively take part during deliberations and up to a quarter might remain completely silent during discussions. Jurors have also reported feeling bullied and intimidated in deliberations and the structure of a group of 12 people discussing something contentious does not necessarily make for a fairer end result. It is also widely reported that in large group discussions sub-groups spontaneously emerge haphazardly as smaller groups break away from the main discussion to start their own discussions.
With the aim of enhancing juror discussions, Dr Bridget Waller and colleagues in the Department of Psychology ran an experiment which manipulated the seating arrangements for jurors deliberating a mock court case. One group of 12 was shown to a room set up as a traditional jury room with 12 chairs around a table. The second group of 12 was shown to a room with chairs clustered in groups of four. Both groups were asked to return a verdict agreed upon by all 12 jury members.
Those who were seated in smaller groups afterwards told researchers that they felt their views had been taken more into consideration by fellow jury members than those who discussed their decision in a traditional group of 12. They also felt less intimidated by other jury members and more able to speak up and discuss their views.
Lead author Dr Waller said: “A group of 12 is an artificially large conversational group, exceeding the limits on how many people can be expected to engage in a single conversation at any one time. This means that some people can contribute a lot less than others.
“As a species we are equipped to operate in groups of a certain size and social interaction becomes increasingly difficult if the group size grows. Although language allows us to interact with multiple others, it has evolved to be no more efficient than it needs to be.
“People naturally split into groups of four during conversations and so asking groups of 12 – such as juries – to make decisions is unlikely to result in all the people being able or willing to contribute to the decision making process. This is counter to scientific research which proves the more information is shared, the better the decisions will be.
“Without an explicit opportunity to talk in smaller groups certain individuals are likely to dominate any large group discussion.
“In our experiments we found that jurors experienced greater shared information when they had the opportunity to talk in small groups, which is the basis of any good decision.
“Every year nearly 400,000 Britons serve as jurors and a key goal in maintaining the integrity of the jury process should be to improve the deliberative process. Active participation of all jurors is necessary to maximise the exchange of information, which results in better decisions. The next step is to see whether asking jurors to discuss in smaller groups before feeding back to the whole group affects the type of decisions people make.
“This study involved a very simple manipulation to make it possible for individuals to contribute to discussions. Understanding how group social processes have evolved is essential for improving the effectiveness of group decision making.”
The research is published in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
Source: University of Portsmouth
0 comments:
Post a Comment