Individual influences on jury decision-making (ppt)

INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCES ON
JURY DECISION-MAKING…read more

WHAT JUROR CHARCTERISTICS MAY
INFLUENCE JURY DECISION-MAKING?
· Certain characteristics of the jury such as
race, age, gender, social class, personality
or occupation etc may be in favour for
some defendants. Lawyers and attorneys
find these characteristics to be of interest if
they are in common with their client as
lawyers have the right to `peremptory
challenges' or `voir dire' in which they can
object to a limit of jurors and select jurors
more sympathetic to their case.…read more

MINORITY INFLUENCE
· Moscovici (1985) believed that through his
research, that consistency of the minority
was the persuasive factor.
· Consistency creates an impression of
confidence which makes others more
likely to believe them.
· In Nemeth and Wacthler's study, the idea
of autonomy is linked with consistency to
investigate its effect on minority influence.…read more

NEMETH AND WACHTLER ­ Investigation of the
influence of perceived autonomy on minority
influence
· AIM: to research the influence of perceived autonomy (where to sit at a table) and
consistency on minority influence.
· METHODOLOGY: lab experiment (mock trial)
· PARTICIPANTS: Groups of 5 with one as a stooge, drawn from an adult sample of
students.
· PROCEDURE: the group had to deliberate on the amount of compensation for a
injury claim victim. After hearing the facts, participants make their own verdicts and
then is taken to a room with a rectangular desk with two seats at either of the
longer sides of the table and one at the head of the table. In half the groups, the
participants are asked to sit at the tables with the stooge choosing the seat at the
head of the table. In the other groups the experimenter tells everyone where to sit.
They deliberate on the case, meanwhile the stooge consistently adopts a deviant
position, suggesting a figure of $3000 in compensation instead of
$10,000-$25,000.
· RESULTS: the stooge exerts influence when he is consistent and when is
perceived as autonomous as he has chosen his seat whereas when seated by the
experimenter he has little influence. When he sits at the head of the table, he is
viewed as more consistent and confident.…read more