The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills

The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994 ) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and eith...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Law and human behavior 1999-10, Vol.23 (5), p.557-575
Hauptverfasser: McCoy, Monica L, Nunez, Narina, Dammeyer, Matthew M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 575
container_issue 5
container_start_page 557
container_title Law and human behavior
container_volume 23
creator McCoy, Monica L
Nunez, Narina
Dammeyer, Matthew M
description The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994 ) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, halfhad their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory-evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-groupdeliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.
doi_str_mv 10.1023/A:1022348229558
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_914687802</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1394421</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1394421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a425t-8797e0e06b77985d69c4d41f4faa19a558affd75f0a82da603c1a5093611daab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1LwzAYxoMoOKdnLx6KCB6kLkmTphEvY84vBoJO8BbetYnrrE1N2sP-ezMqyEA8PfA-v_eD50XomOBLgmkyGl8FoQnLKJWcZztoQLhI4jQlb7togAkTsUiw2EcH3q8wxjLDfICu50sdTY3ReRtZEz12bh3d6KpcaAdtaWsf2XpTtc6fR88avK3L-j16-Siryh-iPQOV10c_OkSvt9P55D6ePd09TMazGBjlbZwJKTTWOF0IITNepDJnBSOGGQAiIRwLxhSCGwwZLSDFSU6AY5mkhBQAi2SITvu5jbNfnfatWtnO1WGlkoSlmchCAP9AFDPCKRc4QKMeyp313mmjGld-glsrgtUmRjVWWzGGjpO-Y-Vb637xRDJGSbAvehsaUI1f5-DaMq-0zzvndN2qarlQYSxXPHxjiM7-prexbwakiAg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204152570</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>McCoy, Monica L ; Nunez, Narina ; Dammeyer, Matthew M</creator><contributor>Wiener, Richard L</contributor><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Monica L ; Nunez, Narina ; Dammeyer, Matthew M ; Wiener, Richard L</creatorcontrib><description>The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994 ) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, halfhad their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory-evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-groupdeliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0147-7307</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-661X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/A:1022348229558</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Southport: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</publisher><subject>Adjudication ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Cognitive Ability ; Cognitive models ; Discounting ; Female ; First degree murder ; Group dynamics ; Human ; Juries ; Jurors ; Jury deliberations ; Male ; Murders &amp; murder attempts ; Reasoning ; Studies ; Thinking skills ; Trial practice ; Trials ; Verdicts</subject><ispartof>Law and human behavior, 1999-10, Vol.23 (5), p.557-575</ispartof><rights>1999 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1999 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a425t-8797e0e06b77985d69c4d41f4faa19a558affd75f0a82da603c1a5093611daab3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Wiener, Richard L</contributor><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Monica L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nunez, Narina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dammeyer, Matthew M</creatorcontrib><title>The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills</title><title>Law and human behavior</title><description>The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994 ) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, halfhad their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory-evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-groupdeliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.</description><subject>Adjudication</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive Ability</subject><subject>Cognitive models</subject><subject>Discounting</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>First degree murder</subject><subject>Group dynamics</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Jurors</subject><subject>Jury deliberations</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Murders &amp; murder attempts</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Thinking skills</subject><subject>Trial practice</subject><subject>Trials</subject><subject>Verdicts</subject><issn>0147-7307</issn><issn>1573-661X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1LwzAYxoMoOKdnLx6KCB6kLkmTphEvY84vBoJO8BbetYnrrE1N2sP-ezMqyEA8PfA-v_eD50XomOBLgmkyGl8FoQnLKJWcZztoQLhI4jQlb7togAkTsUiw2EcH3q8wxjLDfICu50sdTY3ReRtZEz12bh3d6KpcaAdtaWsf2XpTtc6fR88avK3L-j16-Siryh-iPQOV10c_OkSvt9P55D6ePd09TMazGBjlbZwJKTTWOF0IITNepDJnBSOGGQAiIRwLxhSCGwwZLSDFSU6AY5mkhBQAi2SITvu5jbNfnfatWtnO1WGlkoSlmchCAP9AFDPCKRc4QKMeyp313mmjGld-glsrgtUmRjVWWzGGjpO-Y-Vb637xRDJGSbAvehsaUI1f5-DaMq-0zzvndN2qarlQYSxXPHxjiM7-prexbwakiAg</recordid><startdate>19991001</startdate><enddate>19991001</enddate><creator>McCoy, Monica L</creator><creator>Nunez, Narina</creator><creator>Dammeyer, Matthew M</creator><general>Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</general><general>American Psychological Law Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7RZ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991001</creationdate><title>The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills</title><author>McCoy, Monica L ; Nunez, Narina ; Dammeyer, Matthew M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a425t-8797e0e06b77985d69c4d41f4faa19a558affd75f0a82da603c1a5093611daab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adjudication</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive Ability</topic><topic>Cognitive models</topic><topic>Discounting</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>First degree murder</topic><topic>Group dynamics</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Jurors</topic><topic>Jury deliberations</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Murders &amp; murder attempts</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Thinking skills</topic><topic>Trial practice</topic><topic>Trials</topic><topic>Verdicts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McCoy, Monica L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nunez, Narina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dammeyer, Matthew M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Access via APA PsycArticles® (ProQuest)</collection><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McCoy, Monica L</au><au>Nunez, Narina</au><au>Dammeyer, Matthew M</au><au>Wiener, Richard L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills</atitle><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle><date>1999-10-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>557</spage><epage>575</epage><pages>557-575</pages><issn>0147-7307</issn><eissn>1573-661X</eissn><abstract>The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994 ) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, halfhad their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory-evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-groupdeliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.</abstract><cop>Southport</cop><pub>Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</pub><doi>10.1023/A:1022348229558</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0147-7307
ispartof Law and human behavior, 1999-10, Vol.23 (5), p.557-575
issn 0147-7307
1573-661X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_914687802
source HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SpringerNature Journals; APA PsycARTICLES
subjects Adjudication
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive Ability
Cognitive models
Discounting
Female
First degree murder
Group dynamics
Human
Juries
Jurors
Jury deliberations
Male
Murders & murder attempts
Reasoning
Studies
Thinking skills
Trial practice
Trials
Verdicts
title The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A30%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Jury%20Deliberations%20on%20Jurors'%20Reasoning%20Skills&rft.jtitle=Law%20and%20human%20behavior&rft.au=McCoy,%20Monica%20L&rft.date=1999-10-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=557&rft.epage=575&rft.pages=557-575&rft.issn=0147-7307&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/A:1022348229558&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1394421%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204152570&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1394421&rfr_iscdi=true