An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision‐making process

Ann Burnett · Diane M. Badzinski

27 citations0/0 files storedCommunication Quarterly

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Jury Decision Making Processes Linguistics and Discourse Analysis Psychology of Social Influence

Abstract

Different from most other group decision‐making contexts, courtroom jurors face two distinct layers of argument— arguments made during the trial and arguments made during deliberation. The juror often makes an individual decision prior to deliberation based on arguments heard in court and then, using that decision, creates arguments with the other jurors about “what really happened.” The researchers used Canary, Tanita‐Ratledge and Seibold's (1982) coding scheme to analyze arguments in 80 mock juries. The results revealed that jurors’ arguments were not complex; they used assertions and acknowledgments most frequently, followed by propositions, elaborations, and non‐related arguments. The conclusions suggest practical applications for attorneys as well as a model of argument in jury decision‐making.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2003The Uses of Argument 1990Handbook of social psychology 1969The group as a polarizer of attitudes.1999The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?2015Psychology of Group Influence 1986Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.1971The American Jury

Cited by

2025Rape myths, jury deliberations, and conversation analysis: Examining conversational practices used to undermine rape complaints within (mock) jury deliberations 2016Deliberative Decision-Making on the Norwegian County Social Welfare Board: The Experiences of Expert and Lay Members 2005Judge Nonverbal Communication on Trial: Do Mock Trial Jurors Notice?2010Examining Argument in a Naturally Occurring Jury Deliberation 2013What Does It Mean to Deliberate? An Interpretative Account of Jurors’ Expressed Deliberative Rules and Premises

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.