current perspectives in crime and psychology. jury decision making

Jury Decision Making. The power of the minority

Current perspectives in crime and psychology.

Sarah van Mastrigt

Teresa Gracia

Bachelor Degree 2011-2012

Aarhus University

1

Jury Decision Making. The power of the minority Aarhus University

INDEX

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………...

JURY AND JUROR DECISION MAKING …………………………

Models of Juror Decision Making ……………………………………….

WHAT DETERMINES THE INFLUENCE OF .

THE MINORITY? ………………………………………………………

Influence determined by group characteristics..........................................

Influence determined by individual members’ characteristics .................

Influence determined by situational characteristics..................................

CONLCUSION.................................................................................

REFERENCES.................................................................................

2


“The ideal juror is one who can dispassionately listen to the trial evidence and is savvy

enough to render a verdict based on rational and prejudice-free thought processes. The real

juror, on the other hand, is not the blank slate that the judicial system

prefers and presumes to exist.”

(Winter, R. J. and Greene, E., 2008; pg. 741).

It is not far from reality to believe that a big part of the society considers jury members as

people who has some sort of special characteristics that make them more suitable or capable to

take the serious decisions that are supposed to be taken inside a jury room. Since it is commonly

known that the election of jury members is made randomly among all the citizens (over a

determined age) it shouldn’t be really trustable to affirm that are special abilities, or factors, the

ones that make these people to be elected. However, they do are certain individual, collective

and contextual characteristics that highly influence the way the decisions are taken inside a jury

room. So, actually, it is true, in a certain way, that people from the jury has characteristics that

can affect in several different ways the jury decision making process, the only fact is that not

determined people but anybody can influence in a special way inside a jury room.

The focus of this paper is related to some of these influences that take part in the jury decision

making process, concretely the called “Minority Influence”. I personally consider interesting to

investigate this topic, mainly, because minorities are not normally considered really “powerful”

in real life, but they can be influential in several ways depending on different factors, though we

have to remain in a realistic point of view, bearing in mind that situations like the ones we can

observe in movies such as “Twelve angry men” (1957) or “The runaway jury” (2003) are not

really probable.

Thus, my proposal is an analysis in this paper about the following aim research question: What

factors promote minority influence in the jury room?

To best answer my question, I am first going to summarize the general proceeding o Jury

Decision Making, to clarify the standard process in which how juries and jurors make decisions

and I am also going to name briefly what are the main juror decision making models, but I am

going only to describe one of the types since the rest are not really essential to discuss the topic

of my paper. And second, I organize the paper around three types of factors that determine the

influence of the minority: (1) group characteristics, (2) Minority members’ characteristics and

(3) situational characteristics. To perform this, I am principally going to focus the study of each

factor around different models/theories; I am also going to introduce other factors that can

influence them more direct or indirectly. Finally, I am going to conclude the paper analysis with

the most important concepts that are closer to give an answer to my aim research question.

3


JURY AND JUROR DECISION MAKING

Winter, R. J. and Greene, E. (2008) start their chapter Juror Decision-making arguing: “In any

jury trial, empanelled members must sift through conflicting arguments and evidence

presentations and a series of exhaustive jury instructions that frequently involve concepts and

language unfamiliar to most laypeople. Then, during their deliberations, jurors are asked to

recall vast amounts of trial evidence, expected to understand and apply their instructions, and

ultimately, to decide on an “appropriate” verdict” (Handbook of applied cognition, pg. 739).

Diamond et al. (1989) states that the basic purpose of a jury is to make a final decision on guilt,

liability, and/or damage awards. The jury evaluates evidence presented during court proceedings

and has to apply legal rules to the facts as those facts and the law have been presented to them.

Research about jury decision making has traditionally been done within two contexts: the group

decision and the individual juror decision. A typical jury moves through three stages during

deliberation (Levett et al., 2005; Stasser, 1992): orientation, open conflict and reconciliation.

Orientation phase takes place when jurors elect who is going to be their foreperson and when

they discuss the procedures and the general trial issues. .

Deliberation can normally follow two different ways. On one side we can find the denominated

verdict given which consists of beginning the deliberation by taking an initial public vote and

then orienting the discussion around that vote. On the other side we find the named evidence

driven, and we talk about focusing on the evidence presented at trial as the way to start the

deliberation and jurors try to create the best story accounting for all of the evidence.

In the stage of open conflict, jurors attempt to persuade their fellow jurors to reach a verdict

(Costanzo, 2003; Stasser 1992). Reconciliation arrives as the final stage when, after the jury

reaches a final verdict, they try to make sure that every member is satisfied with the verdict.

In case unanimity is required, the decision making processed used by unanimous juries might

differ from the processes used by majority rule juries, where votes are taken earlier and

spending more time and the use of normative influence is usually present.

Models of Juror Decision Making

Most of the literature on jury decision making has been focused on how the decisions are made

by jurors from an individual point of view, even though juries make decisions as groups.

The prevailing models of juror decision making are generally classified into two categories: the

mathematical-algebraic approach and the explanation-based or cognitive approach. There are

three types of models in the first category: Probabilistic approach, algebraic approach and the

Stochastic Process Model. .

The cognitive-based approaches defend the active role of the jurors in the decision making

process, instead of viewing them as passive listeners. “These models incorporate jurors’ unique

experiences, knowledge, belief, and attitudes that may affect hoe they interpret the evidence and

4


ultimately decide whether the defendant is guilty; the models also account for jurors’ cognitive

organization, or mental representation, of the information they heard during the trial”

(Pennington and Hastie, 1992, pg. 373). The most sophisticated and known model based on the

cognitive approach is The Story Model, according to which, the jurors integrate the evidence

into a story that they construct using the evidence learned from the trial, their personal

knowledge about similar events to the one being judged and their knowledge about what

constitutes an acceptable story, based on three main principles: Coverage, coherence and

uniqueness.

WHAT DETERMINES THE INFLUENCE OF THE MINORITY?

That a numerical minority can influence the thoughts and behaviours of members of the

majority is no longer at issue in social psychology. It is less clear when the minority will

influence the majority, who the minority will influence, and what effect will result. The field of

minority influence implies both processes of conflict and cooperation. Differences between

group members may create both intra-individual and intra-group conflict, but cooperation

toward achieving group goals is often achieved through a process of accepting or rejecting

particular persuasion attempts abounding in the group. In many of the conformity studies

described so far it was a minority group who were conforming to the majority. “Group members

that swim against the current of opinion in the group are thought to evoke conflict. In other

words, numerical minorities are commonly construed as the pebble in the majority’s shoe”

(Crano and Seyranian, 2009, pg. 336). Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines. He

claimed that Asch (1951) and others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority

in a group has a large influence on the minority. In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority

to influence the majority. In fact Asch agreed with Moscovici. He too felt that minority

influence did occur, and that it was potentially a more valuable issue to study - to focus on why

some people might follow minority opinion and resist group pressure. Thus, “rather than

viewing the individual or minority as a passive who may say “yes” or “no” to a system of

answers provided by a majority, these researchers studied the impact of active and persistent

minority views” (Nemeth and Kwan, 1987, pg. 789). Crano and Seyranian (2009) believe, in

fact, that innovation and social change may depend on the efforts by active minorities to

challenge the prevailing order that is frequently safeguarded by the majority. .

In a wide definition of minority influence, (assuming that the term “influence” can be defined as

a sort of movement toward the position advocated) there can be two main points: (1) that a

minority influence refers to a form of social influence that is attributed to exposure to a

consistent minority position in a group and, (2) that tends to produce private acceptance of the

views expressed by the minority. If we focus in the first point, we should consider first what we

understand by “social influence”. Moscovici and Faucheux (1972) stated that social influence is

formed by three different modalities of influence: conformity, normalization and innovation,

and each of them represent a behavioural type in the course of the evolution in conflicts and a

5


mode for establishing norms and codes. Moscovici and Lage (1978) defend that “in any social

environment such negotiation, whether explicit or implicit, involves certain rules and values

without which there can be neither agreement nor disagreement. These rules and values, in turn,

are generated by a complex more general principles accepted by the social participants and

defining what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is desirable and what is undesirable” (pg.

350). .

Moving to the second point of the definition of minority influence, there is a direct and indirect

pathways to persuasion recognition that both the majority and minority may exercise influence,

the research supports the contention that majorities exercise their influence at the manifest or

public level, whereas minorities normally exercise their influence at the latent or private levels,

what makes the question arise of when and how is this influence able to reach the public level.

Influence determined by group characteristics

Tindale et al. (2002) defend that groups are seen as superior to individuals as decision-making

entities for at least two reasons. First, groups can represent a larger and more diverse set of

perspectives, constituencies, etc. Thus, they tend to be seen as more fair by providing “voice”

or input from a greater portion of the body for which the decision is made (as cited Tyler and

Smith, 1998).

“The behavior of an individual or subgroup is defined as conformist when this behavior is

determined by legitimate rules and expectations of the group, and when the individual of the

subgroup describes to judgments and opinions of the real or ideal group, irrespective of initial

differences… But, what happens when the interaction of the individuals or the subgroups results

in a conflict?” (Moscovici and Faucheux, 1972, pg. 166). The influence of a majority subgroup

has always been seen as the main social power inside a group; power that allows the members

of this majority to reward and punish with approval and disapproval. And it is due to that fact

that there exists a pressure on minorities to conform. Minority influence is said to occur when a

minority subgroup attempts to change the majority, but since these majorities are often

unconcerned about what minorities think about them, minority influence is rarely based on

normative social influence. Instead, it is usually based on informational social influence, that is,

providing the majority with new ideas, new information which leads them to re-examine their

views. In this respect, minority influence involves private acceptance (i.e. internalization),

converting the majority by convincing them that the minority's views are right.

The principal model that deals with these concepts and studies this potential minority influence

is the Minority Influence Model by Moscovici and Farcheux (1972). They introduce the

concepts of public and private acceptance by defining the terms of “Compliance” and

“Conversion”. Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch, 1951) whereby the

participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them. Conversion

involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a

6


number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility, persuasion, etc.), and it usually involves

both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization).

The authors identify four main factors that have relevance for a minority to be influential over a

majority: behavioral style, style of thinking, flexibility and compromise, and identification.

Since these factors are mainly dependent on the interaction of this minority with the majority

and they are not exclusive individual characteristics of the members of the minority, I introduce

these concepts in this section and not in the one below (Influence determined by minority

member’s characteristics).

o Behavioural Style

Moscovici defended (1969) that the most important aspect of behavioural style is the

consistency with which people hold their position. He investigated behavioural styles

(consistent / inconsistent) on minority influence in his “blue-green” studies. He showed that a

consistent minority was more successful than an inconsistent minority in changing the views of

the majority. That shows that might be very probable that being consistent and unchanging in a

view is more likely to influence the majority than if a minority is inconsistent and chops and

changes their mind. Showing consistency can make the majority more likely to think that that

the minority are convinced they are committed to their viewpoint and also that fact that they are

confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication to take a popular stand and

refuses to back own, they may assume that he or she has a point. So, it seems that a consistent

minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty, doubt and conflict. This can lead to

the majority taking the minority view seriously. The majority will therefore be more likely to

question their own views.

o Style of thinking

Smith et al. (1996) argue that research has shown that if a minority can get the majority to think

about an issue and think about arguments for and against, then the minority stands a good

chance of influencing the majority. An analytic and detailed style of thinking can be more likely

to show stability and stronger arguments (at least, apparently stronger), what also makes

influence likely to be stronger (Nemeth, 1996). It is the systematic thinking/processing (Petty et

al., 1994) the one that guides to a deep analysis of the views being put forward, therefore, it is

this style of thinking (and not a superficial one) the one that can make a minority become more

influential inside the deliberating room.

o Flexibility and Compromise

Even consistency appears to be essential to develop a potential influence, it cannot be affirmed

that it is sufficient for a minority to influence a majority. Mugny and Papastamou (1980) argue

that the key is how the majority interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as

inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the

7


majority. However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be seen as less

extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they will have a better

chance of changing majority views.

o Identification

People tend to identity with people they see similar to themselves. Research indicates that if the

majority identifies with the minority, then they can be more likely to take the views of the

minority seriously and change their own views, or at least, consider changing them, in line with

those of the minority. As an example, Maass et al. (1982) introduce showed that a gay minority

arguing for gay rights had less influence on a straight majority than a straight minority arguing

for gay rights. The non-gay majority identified with the non-gay minority. They tended to see

the gay minority as different from themselves, as self-interested and concerned with promoting

their own particular cause.

It is also interesting to investigate other theories that can contribute to the study of minority

influence. Shelton, T. (2006) uses the group decision-making theory to analyse the jury decision

making process in order to improve deliberation. This author He summarizes that especially

“successful” groups, have certain characteristics: small size, purpose, identification, interaction,

and accepted behavior. Thus, these characteristics may affect, in correlation or not with the

other factors mentioned in the paper, on how influential a minority can be.

A larger group has more information available to them, but it also should bring consensus

among the potential for more divergent opinions. That is, minorities will have to deal with a

bigger majority group, and, even the information available is also bigger, the persuasion will

probably have to be higher. Smaller groups will entail a smaller minority but also, less divergent

opinions to deal with. It is also important for a group to share a purpose, a “decision task”

(Shelton, 2006; Hinsz, 1990) and also a feeling of belonging to the group. Minority groups that

have this membership feeling even though their point of view disagrees with the majority ones

and that are aware of the fact that the decision task has to be solved as a group, will be more

likely to try to expose their arguments and persuade the majority group to analyse their

arguments and change their minds. If there is not a feeling or an interest, no efforts to change

the majority view will be made, what implies that there will be not effective interaction either.

Finally, Shelton (2006) argues that successful group integration requires a willingness on the

part of the individual members to permit their behaviour to be guided by the expectations of the

group. Groups are less successful when members do not rise above selfishness and personal

agendas and, in fact, demonstrate selfish and defensive behaviour (as cited Simon, 1997). If a

minority group is tolerant and considers seriously the majority views and does not exercise an

“authoritarian” and sceptical arguing way, the predisposition of this majority group will

probably also increase and that will facilitate successful interaction. Like Diamond (2003)

affirms: “the jurors who participate more during deliberations also tend to have better

comprehension levels and are more influential on the jury than their fellow jurors” (pg. 152).

8


Influence determined by minority member’s characteristics

The individual characteristics or personal traits of each member that is part of a minority

constitute maybe the main factor that can seriously determine the level of influence of this

minority. But contemporary jury research rarely examines personal traits related with jury

decision making. “A personal trait refers to a relatively stable pattern of thought, emotion, and

behaviour that describes “how people act in general” ” (Funder, 1997, pg. 108). Thus, they

appear to be basically decisive in how a person will manage a situation.

Marcus, Lyons and Guyton (2000) published a study in which jury decision making was

examined by the Five Factor Model (FFM). The experiment consisted in the administration of a

FFM measure to members of eight deliberating juries from real cases (criminal and civil cases).

The FFM identifies five main traits: Openness to Experience, Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Openness to Experience is referred to the search of new

experiences; Neuroticism is referred to the emotional stability and the adjustment level of a

person; Extraversion is related to the level of activity sociability of a person; Conscientiousness

refers to the refers to how self-disciplined, determined, deliberate, and dutiful a person is; and

Agreeableness represents a person’s tendency to be cooperative and affable. .

The researchers found that Jurors reporting high levels of Conscientiousness were most likely to

report being influenced by other jurors, whereas those reporting high levels of Openness were

least likely to report being influenced (Clark et al., 2007).Conscientious individuals are dutiful

(McCrae & Costa, 1990), and “a primary duty of jurors is to attend to and consider the opinions

of the other jurors. Because individuals high in openness to experience are resistant to social

pressures, this dimension is negatively correlated with receptiveness to influence and it may be

that individuals who are willing to hang a jury are high in openness to experience” (Marcus,

Lyons and Guyton, 2000). We can observe that the fact of listening to other members’ opinions

and taking them into consideration appears again as a flattering of an influence. On the contrary,

people closed-minded and resistant to consider their points of view are less likely to be affected

from an external influence, like a minority influence. .

The authors also stated that one decisive trait to understand jury deliberations was Extraversion.

They found that the individuals scoring higher on this personal trait were more likely to be

perceived as dominant by the others and were also more likely to be selected as a foreperson

inside the deliberating room. It also correlated positively with longer jury deliberation times.

“Those scoring high on measures of Extraversion prefer contact with others, enjoy a high level

of activity, and tend to be happy” ” (Marcus, Lyons and Guyton, 2000). It also correlated

positively with longer jury deliberation times. Individuals of a minority that are sociable and

outgoing will probably exert a higher influence. .

Clark et al., (2007) introduce another interesting concept named “Need for Cognition” and it is

described as “an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavours”

(Clark et al., 2007, as cited Cacciopo, Petty, Feinstein, and Jarvis, 1996, pg. 197). Even this

9


concept is rarely described as a personality trait, it can be considered an individual characteristic

related with the stable personality of the person. People that scored high in need for Cognition

were more likely to be influenced by the information presented to them and its quality and

format. So the way in how minorities present their arguments (the messages, the attitude, etc.).

can become a strong persuasive method. As Crano and Seyranian (2009) state: “Minorities

persuade by stimulating curiosity. They raise questions in the minds of their listeners regarding

the how and why of their opinions” (pg. 337). I am going to analyse these concepts again in the

next section.

The group decision-making theory has also some interesting contributions related to individual

characteristics. (Shelton, 2006) argues that the feeling of membership to a group does not

guarantee effective decision making. The characteristics of the members of the group impact

both the process of decision making and the actual decision made. Several studies (like Simons

1997; Visher 1987) identify juror characteristics that are expected to influence jury

deliberations. We are talking about gender, defending that men normally participate more than

women; age is also related. Middle-aged jurors participate more than older and younger jurors.

Also a higher status and education imply more participation inside the jury room. Related to

race, white people participate more other minorities and finally, foremen participate more and

also have more control of the direction of the group discussion. Thus, any element that promotes

interaction and participation will be favourable for the influence from the minority.

Influence determined by situational characteristics

Inside the ambit of situational characteristics, there are not only included contextual elements,

like can be considered Pretrial publicity, the type of evidence, the message of the speakers, the

deliberating process itself, or room arrangements, but also characteristics of the members as

personal beliefs, previous experiences to the trial (related, similar or not to it) or the level of

stereotyping. The interrelation and the interaction of these several factors create an influential

situation that becomes different in each jury decision-making process. .

Jurors have to deal with multiple information and sometimes overlapping legal issues in one

trial. This trial complexity usually decreases the ability and the interest to understand the issues

in the trial and also the confidence of the jurors in their own verdict (Levett et al., 2005). It is

not sufficient for a minority influence to take place if, even the minority group is compromised

and motivated, there is not a predisposition of the majority group for becoming involved in a

proper deliberating process basically because of the difficulties of the members to comprehend

the trial issues. Furthermore, there exist other trial elements that can affect this influence. Levett

et al., (2005) comment several aspects like the Eyewitness evidence, saying that members of the

jury are usually less likely to convict a defendant of a crime if there is only circumstantial

evidence and not an eyewitness evidence that identifies him/her; Confession evidence is

commented as well, stating that those cases that contained a confession had higher conviction

rates, that is that jurors assigned more weigh to confession evidence than to other types of

10


evidence. Characteristics of the defendant are more decisive for the jurors’ decision making

process than they appear to be. Physical attractiveness, white race, high socioeconomic status

and similarity to the jurors’ (ethnicity, beliefs, background, shared experiences or likelihood to

them, etc.) have a positive effect on jurors’ general impressions. For example, Pozzulo (2010)

states that women are more likely to convict in rape cases and provide harsher sentences than

men (as cited Scroggs, 1976). All these factors can also be applied to the minority members’

characteristics and, on the whole, create and stereotyping bias that can make the influence of

this minority fluctuate to a success (in case that minority member’s characteristics are

considered positively) or to an inexistent influence. .

The Pretrial publicity is other factor that can also favour the appearance of bias. Its main

consequence is that jurors bias new evidence in favour of their current leading party

(prosecution or defense) rather than evaluating this information for its actual probative

properties. Hope, Memon, and McGeorge (2004) postulate that depending on the trial and

legislative reins on the press within a particular jurisdiction, publicity may reach potential jurors

in a combination of extended, graphic, emotional, and judgmental communications about the

defendant, victims, and key witnesses. Jurors forming their opinions from this pretrial publicity

will probaly evaluate new information in a way that is favourable to that initial opinion, so this

opinion will become consequently more resistant to change, and decision-makers may be more

likely to view new ambiguous information as confirming previous beliefs or opinions and are

more likely to dismiss information disconfirming initial opinions (Hope, Memon, and

McGeorge, 2004; Ross & Anderson, 1982). .

The Leniency Contract Model (Crano and Chen, 1998) studies some of the situational factors

cited above: characteristics of the speakers’ messages, personal beliefs and response patterns.

Crano and Seyranian (2009) state that the presence for a strong held belief has clear

implications has clear implications for resistance (as cited Knowles & Linn, 2004). But this

resistance depends also on the message topic: a minority message of high relevance or vested

interest that argues for a negative personal outcome (introducing the Euro) will be resisted, and

people will invest more effort to understand the majority’s message. Conversely, people exert

more cognitive effort to process a minority message that is low-in vested interest and outcome

involvement (e.g., euthanasia) (Crano and Seyranian 2009, pg. 339 as cited Crano, 1995)

Arguably, some message topics and/or social issues such juror deliberation topics may involve

weakly formed attitudes. As such, in cases of low vested interest or attitude importance, people

may be convinced by the minority because they have weakly formed attitudes. That is, they

have little to defend and do not have much to lose in forming their attitudes, especially when

presented with a strong message. Accordingly, by virtue of the attention it elicits, a minority

source may be more influential than a majority, and may be capable of provoking immediate

focal change. This is precisely what Martin and Hewstone (2003; Experiment 2) showed. In the

case of attitude formation (euthanasia), strong messages delivered by a minority source were

more influential than a majority source in eliciting immediate focal change. Furthermore,

11


attitudes formed as a result of minority influence appeared more resistant to subsequent

persuasion pressures, more likely to persist, and better to predict behaviour than attitudes

formed as a result of majority persuasion (Martin et al., 2003). .

The perceptions that the jurors have of their own judgements also may be affected by a minority

influence. On one side, subjective issues, concerning choices perceived as involving personal

preferences or palate, not verifiable, right or wrong judgments, are more likely to be influenced

by other points of view. On the other side, on objective issues (or perceived as objective), where

the perception or belief defends that there is a right or wrong position. Many social issues are

probably perceived to be objective are followed by objective judgments (or perceived as them),

that “are more likely to be vested and held with some degree of conviction or passion. As such,

these judgments may prove more difficult to change; however, once changed, the changes are

more likely to persist, and to motivate attitude-consistent action” (Crano and Seyranian, 2009,

pg. 347).

Finally, it is curious to mention that room arrangements, like simple issues as the shape of the

table, may also have an effect in the potential influence of a minority. Hall (1971) reported that

it is helpful for groups to be seated in a circle or other democratically arranged manner because

it results in less conflict than across-the-table discussion, encourages eye contact among those at

the table, and thus encourages discourse among more members of the group, promoting

openness, equality of status, and security. In case of the presence of a rectangular shaped table,

“It is possible that individuals seeking a leadership position in the jury recognize the power

found in sitting at the ends of the rectangular table and intentionally take those positions”

(Shelton, T., 2006, pg. 715).

CONCLUSION

Minority influence can be exerted in several different ways and its strength and efficiency

depends on diverse factors. If the influence is considered from the side of group characteristics,

minorities depend on their relation with the majority group: being consistent and having a solid

argument, an analytic style of thinking, flexible and tolerant will help the minority group to be

persuasive. Small, united and task-involved groups will also be easier to be influenced by a

member from the minority. On the individuals’ characteristics field, sociable and outgoing

members that have to deal with open-minded majorities will create an easier influencing

situation. Also characteristics that promote participation, such as middle-aged, male, white

raced jurors, with higher status and education, will make influence easier. Finally, focused on

situational factors, the type of evidence and the manner in which it is presented combined with

previous stereotypes of the jurors and the pretrial publicity can affect negatively the minority

influence. Nevertheless, strong and powerful messages to weakly formed attitudes, also

involving several subjective judgements like the ones required inside a jury room, and not

jerarchich room arrangements will facilitate, in conjuction with the rest of elements, the

influence of the minority.

12


REFERENCES

current perspectives in crime and psychology. jury decision making

Documents