Davis, J. H., Stasson, M., Parks, C. D., Hulbert, L., Kameda, T., Zimmerman, S. K., & Ono, K. (1993). Quantitative decisions by groups and individuals: Voting procedures and monetary awards by mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 326-346.
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into jury decision making factors, jury decision timing, and the jury decision making process by talking to actual trial jurors. Three criminal jury trials were observed, and seventeen of the jurors were interviewed after each trial’s completion. The data indicate that jurors were influenced by the evidence, witnesses, lawyers, and defendant in the trials. In two trials, jurors made their decisions early; one trial produced later decisions. The jurors’ reports also demonstrate that jurors considered evidence and discussed the key issues during deliberation.
<1>Juries generally gave larger awards than individuals. Juries with mandated polling took longer and hung more but also gave larger awards than juries that did not. <2>No conformity effect of ascending or descending sequence in award preferences; juries taking initial
poll after minimal discussion hung more but gave larger awards than juries taking poll before any discussion.