The Effects of Jury Composition on Jury Reasoning

Brad Frey

Dr. Narina Nunez

Psychology and Law

University of Wyoming, 1999

(My very first publication! Give me a break, I was 15)

Abstract

The goal of this study is aimed to retrieve information regarding the composition of a jury. The information this research aspired to retrieve is determining the composition’s affect on the jury at large, as well as how jury composition affects the verdict reached. We have examined how the jury has been affected by the distribution of reasoning levels of jurors in this study. The results in this study exposed that a juror that contributes a higher reasoning level affects the jury by raising the collective reasoning level, thereby affecting the verdict. When jury reasoning levels are higher, the verdict will be less harsh than the verdict of a low reasoning level jury (according to the hypothesis).

The purpose of the present study is to test the reasoning level of the jury. Kuhn (1994) developed a method of coding a juror’s responses and deliberations in order to test the reasoning of jurors. We used Kuhn’s method of coding in this study to determine the reasoning level of jurors. In Kuhn’s method of coding, she explains that there are four functions of reasoning. The four functions defined by Kuhn are used to determine a juror’s reasoning level. These four functions are:

1. Justifying the chosen verdict. This is considered by Kuhn to be a low-level reasoning task because an individual supporting their own opinion is a display of instinct rather than a display of reason or logic.

2. Discounting an alternative verdict. Discounting an alternative verdict is simply deprecating another individual’s opinion or chosen verdict.

3. Discounting the chosen verdict. This is considered to be a high level reasoning task because it shows that the individual is objective and unbiased regarding the opinions of others or alternative verdicts as well as the ability to recognize fault in their own logic.

4. Supporting an alternative verdict. This also represents a high reasoning level because it shows that a person no only acknowledges another point of view, but they can also rationalize for another person, which demonstrates that the individual is able to understand as well as support another person’s point of view or verdict.

Some jurors advanced beyond the four functions defined by Kuhn and engaged in what is known as the Socratic Questioning technique. Although these jurors were likely not aware of this behavior, they used this type of questioning innately or unconsciously as a method of argument while deliberating. This technique is used to incite a person to generate a more correct statement. Socrates used this method to reveal inconsistencies in a person’s logic. The three primary lines of question one can use in this technique are:

1. Questions that reveal overgeneralization.

2. Questions that reveal a person’s lack of evidence

3. Questions that reveal a false label

In this study, questions identified as implementing Socratic questioning are regarded as “queries.” The queries are questions that have some intent of provoking thought to another juror. These queries may have an implied assertion with justification in question form, which validates them to be included as a unit, even those they are simply questions. Units will be discussed further in the materials and procedure section.

During jury deliberation, the jury’s goal is to reach a unanimous verdict. The outcome of the jury’s verdict is influenced by jurors’ reasoning ability. The hypothesis suggests that the jury composition will affect the overall reasoning level of the jury. The composition of a jury is determined by the distribution of each individual juror’s reasoning levels. Since the reasoning levels of each individual varies, the hypothesis declares that the reasoning level of the entire jury will be influenced by a variety of reasoning levels.

The main question being researched is: Does a jury’s composition (being the independent variable) affect the reasoning level of the jury? The hypothesis suggests that the jury’s reasoning level is dependent upon the jury’s composition. The focus of this study is to scrutinize mock jurors’ deliberations to determine whether the jury composition will affect the reasoning level of the jury.

Also, by investigation the results of a jury’s composition as ‘mostly high’ or ‘mostly low’ or ’split,’ the verdict can actually be determined before the verdict has been decided. This will predict the verdict that a jury with opposite reasoning levels would most likely choose. The premise is that a person with a low reasoning level might not consider alternatives, but a person with a high reasoning level will be more objective toward alternatives. Also, a person with a low reasoning level might choose a more harsh verdict than a person with a higher reasoning level. This means that a person with a low reasoning level has greater potential to have a stronger negativity bias than a person with a higher reasoning level.

Method

Participants

Sixty-six students (twenty-two (22) males and forty-four (44) females) participated in this study, which is the equivalent of eleven juries. These students were enrolled at a “Rocky Mountain University.” Each student participated in this experiment to fulfill partial course requirements.

Materials and Procedure

Those who participated watch an edited video of an actual trial. This video consisted of the prosecution and defendant’s opening statements, fulltestimonies of two key witenesses and closing statements. each juror was also presented with written summaries of all other testimonies relevant to the trial. Having seen the video of the trial, each person was instructed to deliberate in a mock jury.

Each of the eleven jury were instructed on the law and reasonable doubt standards to reach a verdict. Each jury was also instructed on the possible verdicts for this trial. After they has seen the trial, the previously stated topics were explained to the jury. The four possible verdicts for this case were:

1. Manslaughter

2. First-degree murder

3. Second-degree murder

4. Self-defense (not guilty)

A foreperson was selected for each jury. Mock jurors then deliberated for one hour and their goal during this hour of deliberation was to reach a unanimous verdict for this trial. The participants were assembled in groups of approximately six people.

The deliberation of each jury was recorded. After each jury deliberated, their deliberations were transcribed. Each transcript was coded by Kuhn’s method of coding. First, the transcripts were separated by units. Kuhn defines a unit as containing an assertion and any noted justification relevant to the unit. However, a unit can vary in lenght and have no justification. A unit can range from one sentence to a paragraph in length. After the transcripts had been separated into units, the units were coded according to Kuhn’s functions of reasoning, which were described previously.

Each function is then given a numerical representational value. Justifying the chosen verdict was given a value of one. Discounting an alternative verdict was given a value of two. Discounting the chosen verdict was given a value of three. Supporting an alternative verdict was given a value of four. These values represent the reasoning level of a juror. The total number of functions of each individual juror were added together to represent the collective reasoning level of the jury.

The reasoning level of each juror was combined with the other jurors to find the sum of the reasoning levels of the jurors (collective reasoning level). An average was found for the eleven juries, which determines an estimated reasoning level of each individual juror. The reasoning level was either high or low. If an individual’s reasoning level is above average, they have a high reasoning level. If an individual’s reasoning level is below average, they are considered to have a low reasoning level.

Results

The results show that eight of the eleven juries chose manslaughter as their verdict. The only jury that chose ‘not guilty (self defense)’ as their verdict was a jury with a completely high reasoning level (there were no reasoning level jurors in this group). Thus, the research supports the hypothesis that a high level jury will choose a less harsh verdict than juries with a low reasoning level. However, there were two juries with a low reasoning level that chose a less harsh verdict than some of the high reasoning level juries. Also, there were two high reasoning level juries that chose a verdict that was more harsh than all the other juries. The two juries that chose the most harsh verdicts had predominantly high reasoning levels. One jury of a three-three split in reasoning levels (three high reasoning levels and three low reasoning levels) also chose manslaughter, which was the most commonly chosen verdict for this trial. Six of the nine juries who chose less harsh verdicts also had high reasoning level jury compositions.

Discussion

Since jury reasoning levels may vary in different cases, compositions and environmental settings, the distribution of reasoning levels of a jury will reflectively vary. Since these reasoning levels vary, the research may (or may not) simply be retrieving information about the reasoning level in a group setting and neglecting the reasoning level of an individual in a different setting. This note indicates that the experiment is based on a quasi-experimental-design. Since the research is only retrieving information about a group setting, only an individual’s reasoning level in a group setting is disclosed, which might not accurately reflect their own reasoning level.

Does an individual’s reasoning level affect the reasoning level of the entire jury? Does the reasoning level of a jury affect the reasoning level of an individual? Perhaps they affect one another mutually. One speculation derived from this experiment is that being in a jury (or group setting) will alter an individual’s behavior, thereby altering their apparent reasoning level, thus altering the overall composition of the jury. An individuals’ reasoning level may fluctuate during the deliberation process, which might cause the jury’s collective reasoning level to fluctuate as well.

As a group’s number increases, it becomes more polymorphous than before. Diversification of a group allows different viewpoints to surface, which greatly heightens the entire group’s reasoning level. As the group grows larger, the reasoning level will change as more cognitive resources are available. The cognitive resources are considerably greater in a jury of twelve, compard to a jury of six (Horowitz, 1998). Essentially, the point is that the jury composition will vary. As it varies, the jury’s reasoning level will vary accordingly. In a smaller jury, a person may be more myopic to the convictions within their own jury. As the group’s number increases, more viewpoints are presented, which heightens the reasoning level of each jury.

Even though a jury’s number and deliberation might increase, it does not mean that they are reasoning at a higher or lower level. It might be the same level at which they were always reasoning or functioning. The level of reasoning depends upon how astute each juror is. A more diverse scope of thought (provided by more jurors presented to a jury will heighten the reasoning level of a jury.

Variables affecting the jury’s composition may be those such as an individual’s tendency to rationalize, forget, embellish or having selective attention. These things vary among jurors and these different factors among individuals affect the jury’s composition. If a juror’s reasoning level is affected by the group, the reasoning level of the entire jury will change. If a juror doesn’t fully comprehend the task or subject, their reasoning ability will be lower and the jury’s reasoning level will also be lower. The reasoning level of an individual (and jury) depends upon how each individual receives and processes or accounts for the information that they have received. The behavior of some individuals may represent (through their reasoning ability) how determined they are to reach a verdict. A juror who isn’t involved or concerned with the verdict may demonstrate through their participation, or lack thereof, that their easoning level is low. Perhaps they don’t feel the need to reason at a higher level in a jury because the verdict will be reached whether they reason at their paramount reasoning level or if they engage in social loafing or passive aggressive behavior.

Another speculation derived from this experiment is that the reasoning level of an individual may very well be a conscious effort rather than an inherent quality. If a juror feels that a verdict will be reached regardless of their participation, they may not exert a conscious effort to use their full reasoning ability. They will rather consciously enforce a barrier to avoide participating in deliberation because they might feel insignificant.

References

Kuhn, D., weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do Jurors Reason? Competence Dimensions of Individual Variation in a Juror Reasoning Task. Psychological Science. 289-296.

Horowitz, I.A., Willging, T.E., Bordens, K.S. (1998). The Psychology of Law. new York, N.Y. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

*copyright 1999