Dissertations and Theses @ UNI

Availability

Open Access Thesis

Keywords

Jury--Decision making; Verdicts;

Abstract

Juror rule structures were hypothesized to influence juror verdict characteristics in four ways: (a) Juror rule structures significantly affect juror verdicts; (b) Jurors who use evaluative rule structures perceive themselves to be more influential during the deliberations than jurors who use adaptive rules; (c) Jurors who use evaluative rule structures are more confident that they have reached the best possible verdict than jurors who use adaptive rules; (d) The ballots of jurors who use evaluative rules will be less salient than the ballots of jurors who use adaptive rules. Naturalistic self-report techniques were used to test the hypotheses. Sixty jurors participating in 3 criminal and 3 civil trials in the First Judicial District of Iowa during June and July of 1985 completed questionnaires upon the conclusion of their jury service. The survey instrument consisted of five single-item rule scales and seven verdict characteristic scales. Responses to the survey were analyzed via chi square tests of independence and multivariate analysis of variance. The data supported two of the four original hypotheses. As predicted, evaluative rule users thought themselves to be more influential during the deliberations than did adaptive rule users. Further, the ballots of evaluative rule users were significantly less salient than the ballots of adaptive rule users. Contrary to prediction, evaluative and adaptive rule users did not render significantly different numbers of guilty and innocent verdicts. Also, adaptive rule users expressed more confidence in their verdicts than did evaluative rule users. The data are discussed in terms of the contingency rules theory, the criminal justice system, and scientific methods of jury selection. Further, the data revealed four unique juror profiles that correspond to the levels of evaluative and adaptive rules they use. The implications of the deliberation behavior of each juror type is discussed with reference to court procedures. Finally, conceptual and methodological refinements in the contingency rules theory and jury research are suggested.

Year of Submission

1985

Degree Name

Master of Arts

Department

Department of Communication and Theatre Arts

First Advisor

Bill Henderson

Second Advisor

Jay Edelnant

Third Advisor

Jon Hall

Comments

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this thesis and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to scholarworks@uni.edu and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Date Original

1985

Object Description

1 PDF file (140 leaves)

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Included in

Communication Commons

Share

COinS