To maximize the value of jury deliberations, it is important to recognize how lay citizens in a mixed-court jury think about communication during deliberations. In this study, we analyzed jury deliberations during a mock mixed-court jury trial to examine situations in which jurors feel satisfaction or otherwise, and the situations in which they agree with an opinion. We examined several forms of data: A videotape of the deliberation process; pre- and post-trial questionnaires completed by six jurors who participated in the mock trial; and post-trial interviews with the same jurors. Some jurors thought that the opinion needed to be well-founded, and a juror who agreed with that thought was satisfied with the deliberation process. However, those jurors who were unable to discern the reasoning behind the opinion were not satisfied with the deliberation process. If there are relationships between satisfaction and agreement with the rule, these findings suggest that communication during deliberation needs to appear valid not only from the point of view of an observer but also from the perspective of jury members.
|Number of pages||16|
|Journal||Research in Social Psychology|
|Publication status||Published - 2010 Dec 1|
- Expert-lay communication
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Psychology