Examining Small Group Dynamics Within Juries
Although it may not always be perceived as such, small groups are almost ubiquitous in our lives, and can include family, friends, classmates, professional peers and colleagues. Reference the work of Back (1979), Galanes and Adams offer this observation, “Small groups, whether in education, business and industry, healthcare, social services, religion, family life, politics, or government work, are the basic building blocks of our society” (Galanes and Adams, 2013, p. 4). A most significant aspect for groups is the ability to communicate. Galanes and Adams enumerate the principles of communication:
1) Human communication is symbolic: We have had a tendency to label things for no particular or inherent reason to do so. As Galanes and Adams point out, “Symbols are arbitrarily created by people to represent experiences, objects, or concepts. This arbitrariness means that there is no inherent or automatic reason why we call a collection of people a group” (p. 24).
2) Communication is personal: The symbolic nature of our communication, as well as the fact that words can have multiple meanings, can render communication as something arbitrary. Communication between two people with the same backgrounds, experiences, and that share the same meaning can often reach perfect understanding.
3) Communication is a transactional process: In order for the communication to be of meaning to the people involved in an interaction, both the sender of the message and the receiver need to have some commonality with respect to understanding and interpreting the message.
4) Communication is not always intentional: Whenever two people happen to be in one another’s ‘perceptual awareness,’ it is not possible for them to be sending or emitting some type of signal. And that signal has potential communicative value.
5) Communication involves content and relationship dimensions: Essentially, this means that whatever sound a person may utter when interacting with another will include both content and relationship dimensions. The content is considered the ‘what’ of the communication, while the relationship dimension is viewed as the how of the message, which can also be reflected in nonverbal ways.
Twelve Opinions, One Outcome
It is interesting to view the manner in which an individual may behave when engaged in a one-on-one interaction, and then subsequently see how that behavior often changes when that same individual is interacting as part of a group. The specific group, for the purpose of this paper, is juries. Before a jury can be impaneled, the process of voir dire must be conducted. Treger notes, “The term ‘voir dire’ literally means ‘to speak the truth.’ The ultimate goal of voir dire is to insure that the jury is composed of individuals who are competent to weigh the evidence presented at trial and make a decision based on facts” (Treger, 1992, p. 551). Selecting a jury is a somewhat complex exercise, which is often the source of a great deal of uncertainty. Defense lawyers and district attorneys hope to choose jurors that are likely to view one side or the other in a more favorable way. It is the uncertainty that develops that is “the primary focus of the group dynamics model” (Treger, p. 550).
As a side note, in his work on modeling interactions in small groups, Heise (2013) offers an interesting view on how the composition of juries, and the role of respective jurors, has changed over the course of the past 60 years. The juror role in the 1950s was considered to be a male presence; indeed, females serving as jurors met with legal resistance (Heise, 2013). Given that particular factor, it seems certain that group dynamics – perhaps especially with respect to juries – have gone through considerable change to get to where we are today. By subsequently using the theory and model of group interaction, it is crystal clear that today’s women are taking on a much greater instrumental role when serving on juries, which is an obvious transformation from the expressive role in the past. Interestingly, Heise also notes that in their role as jurors today, males show a much more expressive role than in the past (Heise, 2013).
Group Agency
Once the 12 jurors (as well as x number of alternates) are selected, the trial begins, all evidence is presented by both sides, and that part of the trial is wrapped up, the case then goes to the jury, which is charged with the duty of examining the merits of the case, deliberating, voting, and rendering its verdict. Depending on the nature of the court case, jury deliberation can become a contentious process. Deciding on a unanimous verdict can take countless hours and days, and personality characteristics of individual jurors are likely to emerge as discussions wear on. Pardo (2015) examines this issue and asks a series of questions, excerpted below:
1) What is the relationship between the jury, as a collective decision-making body, on one hand, and the views of individual jurors, on the other?
2) Is the jury merely the sum total of the individual views of its members?
3) Or do juries possess properties and characteristics of agency (for example, beliefs, knowledge, preferences, intentions, plans, and actions) that are in some sense distinct from those of its members? (Pardo, 2015, p. 1793).
Pardo follows up on these questions with the premise that views the jury “as a group agent with agency that may differ from that of its members” (p. 1793).
To provide context for this discussion, it is beneficial to explain the concept of agency or group agency. When a number of individuals, all of whom have their own respective ideas, beliefs, judgments, etc. comes together as a group, does it result in the emergence of a collective set of intentions, decisions, beliefs, etc.? Pardo suggests that a collective mindset – or group agency – does surface, and that the group’s judgment ‘supervenes’ over the combined judgments of the individuals. The author also contends that juries are indeed group agents, but specifies that juries are ‘group epistemic agents.’ The judgments rendered are conclusions that are based on a measure of proof. The group action engaged in by juries can be life-changing and are likely to result in dire consequences, in the case of criminal trials. Moreover, Pardo contends that juries fail when they cannot, or will not, exercise their ‘collective agency’ (Pardo, p. 1816). By understanding how juries function with regard to group agency, it ostensibly can provide attorneys with a better chance of understanding how a jury behaves and what kind of things impact the jury.
Despite the nature and seriousness of the jury’s responsibility, aspects of group dynamics are likely to become part of their task. An example presented by Special Agent M. Bret Hood of the FBI reflects the way in which this can occur. It is somewhat reminiscent of the scenes from the movie 12 Angry Men, although certainly with differences. The scenario goes like this:
As deliberations begin on a criminal case, namely, a violent crime, one juror is undoubtedly certain, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ that the defendant is guilty. The juror has arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence. However, this one juror is in a hurry to put an end to the case, not wanting to use up vacation time from work. Another member calls for a vote, which results in an 11 to 1 guilty verdict. The juror that called for the vote is the lone holdout on the guilty verdict. The single juror indicates that the defendant is might be guilty, but wants to review the facts and further deliberate, given that the outcome would send a man to prison. Hours pass and the lone juror holds firmly to a not guilty position, despite compelling arguments from some of the other jurors. Ultimately, it appears that there will be at least another week of deliberations, at which time the trial might end with a hung jury. In the meantime, how does the juror that was so quick to get out of there deal with the frustration? (Hood, 2015).
What follows next is an interesting analysis of this exercise, which focuses on the dynamics of the group of jurors. The analysis first addresses the role of in-groups and out-groups. People who share a belief or judgment often devolve into what Hood characterizes as the “us-versus-them” group mentality (Hood, 2015). It is often the case that when faced with committing to a decision on guilt or innocence, two clear cut groups will form. According to Hood, “A predictable behavior dynamic follows. Those in the majority quickly establish their social identity as the ‘in-group’ (us). Those opposed are branded with a negative social identify and ‘out-group’ status (them) because they disagree with the majority” (Hood, 2015).
The in-group at this point might carefully and even kindly attempt to persuade the out-group to reconsider its opinion. This attempt might start out nice but perhaps in no more than a few minutes, the whole group becomes contentious, and even hostile, which results in ‘harsh personal attacks.’ Psychological pressure increases and a shift in the in-group and out-group creates new groupings. The mental conflict devolves into inappropriate and ugly negative social behaviors. Clearly, this is an example of group dynamics at its worst. The argument can be made that none of the jurors had a personal stake in this scenario. It truly had no direct bearing on any of their lives. If this can happen in an ostensibly neutral scenario, we can certainly imagine what happens when a personal stake is involved.
Reaching a Verdict
Given the kind of scenario just presented, it raises a question of just how often that type of behavior occurs when juries deliberate. It would seem that the more conflicted the case, meaning that either a defendant’s race, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, gender or sexual orientation influences or intrudes on a case, the likelihood of friction between jury members might increase. Certainly, in today’s society, diversity has gained a much more fitting acceptance in our country, but criminal trials could potentially alter that acceptance. How, then, is a jury able to put other influences aside and focus on their duty that they have been given? Can jurors separate the merits of a case from a person’s background, character, or sexual preference? And, if so, how does that happen?
In her paper on ‘training’ better jurors, Gordon makes a number of compelling points when it comes to the role of the jury. The state relies on a group of diverse laypeople to make a decision that ultimately changes people’s entire lives, takes them away from family, and denies them their freedom. I would image that for many jurors the weight of such a responsibility is likely to be quite sobering. One of the more compelling of Gordon’s observations about jurors notes, “There are a variety of problems associated with group decision making, from the loss of individual motivation in group settings, to the vulnerability of groups (Kerr et al, 1996), to various cognitive biases and errors. Moreover, jurors are often at a disadvantage because most of them have never served on a jury (Henningsen et al., 2000) and many of them have never worked with a group to reach a decision about a complex problem” (Gordon, 2015, p. 416). An additional factor worth noting is that oftentimes jurors may not fully understand the instructions given to them, or are provided with the appropriate tools to help in the process. Gordon adds that there are various circumstances in which individuals are called together to work as a group and make decisions – for example, in the workplace or in the military – but with the proper training are able to meet their goals.
Although some progress has been made with providing addition instruction and perhaps even training to jurors, the need has not yet been fully met. Relevant to Hood’s scenario previous mentioned, Gordon further emphasizes that group dynamics are certainly in play in such cases where a single juror is the hold out for reaching a verdict. How does that person stand up to the group, in a way that will be constructive, as opposed to creating a hostile environment? Group dynamics is certainly an area of knowledge that seems to be in need of being given much greater significance with the court system. Gordon is persuasive in her argument that it is necessary for the court system to recognize the beneficial elements that can be drawn from conclusions obtained in studying group dynamics and group decision-making.
Groups can and often do have a strong influence in our lives. Sometimes that influence can be quite helpful. However, there are also occasions when an individual or individuals find themselves being overpowered by the collective force of the group, even if it is only in terms of words and ideas. Gordon offers another observation, which I believe is an appropriate note on which to end this paper. Gordon contends, “So while the representative jury is an improvement from the time of trial by combat, studies of group dynamics and training in group decision-making can inform that process and we should draw from the conclusions of those studies to give individual jurors more guidance about how to avoid the vulnerabilities associated with group decision-making and reach better decisions” (p. 424).