The common form of decision making takes within a group is arriving at a consensus with regards to the judgment like where to hold an individual whether the defendant is guilty of innocent. In an event the majority of the members of a group favour an individual's opinion despite the fact that the majority is limited, the team might thus adopt that particular view of the majority. Evidently, such an outcome is much expected because of the conformity pressures; therefore, it is essential for the ultimate verdict of the group replicate the typical of the preliminary opinion of the members of the group. Research has shown that group shows pressure towards conformity (Nuñez, McCrea & Culhane, 2011). However, the propensity to align with the majority following the dialogue of the members seems reliability. In most instances, a group often makes the more excessive verdict in the course of the current norms than we might predict they would take into consideration the primary group member’s decision. Evidently, this might appear astounding due to an intense conviction that the group seems to drive individuals towards accord in making judgment. There are instances where they often result in a severe decision than those made on their own.
Group polarization experienced in the situation where the members indicated ways in which an individual ought to decide between risks although at the same time very positive result and a less but a very less desirable result (Saks, 1977). Research has shown that the group’s polarization on the type of decision, for instance, commendation is high risk than a typical view of the members of the group. Therefore, taking into consideration of such a case, the divergence can just be understood partially through transmission of accountability (Saks, 1977). Since the entire team seems to take responsibility for the decision an individual, in this case, a jury might be more than enthusiastic to come up with a firm position because they share the blameworthiness with the rest of the members especially in the event the hazardous pronouncement fails to work.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is critical to consider the notion that the group’s polarization might not entirely be restricted to the special announcement that entails risks. A study conducted by a group of students who were asked to assess the innocence or the guilt of a defendant in a traffic case. In addition to this, the researcher further manipulated the substantiation strength against the accused such that in a particular group the proof seems stronger and in the other group, the verification seems weaker (Nuñez, McCrea & Culhane, 2011). It led to two different jury’s groups one in which most of the students primarily favoured punishment based on the stronger substantiation while others in the majority initially supported exoneration based on the weaker proof available. The individuals were further requested by the researchers to articulate own views regarding the defendant’s culpability prior and after the judge’s deliberation. The opinion that individual had concerning the guiltiness or virtuousness of the accused was established as highly severe after the discussions than on normal situation before the dialogue. The jury's members particularly those who preferred the aspect of detention became more probable to come up to the conclusion that the accused was guilty after engaging in a discussion. On the other hand, those jury members who had primarily preferred exoneration turned out more probable to consider the notion that the accused was not guilty immediately after engaging in a discussion (Saks, 1977). The judge, in this case, was provided with both weaker and stronger substantiation concerning the guiltiness of the accused and then they were permitted or denied the opportunity to engage in discussing the verification provided before the final decision making (Saks, 1977). To demonstrate the groups’ polarisation the juries who reviewed the case were forced to make significantly ultimate decisions than did the juries that never engaged in a discussion of the case.
The group polarization concept often does not necessarily take place in every group and within all setting however often happens when two distinct situations exist (Saks, 1977). The first condition is where the each member of the group has had preliminary learning towards a specified decision or view. In a situation where the members of the group hold up the liberal policy, then their opinions are most probable to be highly liberal even after the conversations. On the other hand, if the groups are comprised of the liberal and conservative then the group’s polarization might not be anticipated. Secondly, group’s polarization is often made stronger by debating and consideration of the particular topic selected (Nuñez, McCrea & Culhane, 2011). Group polarization is seen in various significant authentic world contexts such as within the financial decision making within a corporate boardroom. The recent polarization within the courts in most states for instance in the US between the juries is taking place in huge part. According to Saks (1977), every group members spend considerable time to communicate with the rest of the concurring members of the groups resulting in a more extreme opinion on both sides. Juries have been argued to create their severe position and further engage in harsh decisions due to the polarization of the groups experienced in their day-to-day interactions. The members have a particular fundamental viewpoint, get together and share their apprehensions and requirements, their views get polarized, and this allows them to be progressively more extreme.
Research has shown that the polarization of the group emerges due to the affective and the cognitive elements. Therefore, the universal notion of the convincing view strategy towards the elucidation of the group’s polarization is the aspect of the cognitive direction. Based on this method, it is assumed that there exists defined prospective argument which tends to support a particular view and another impending argument that seem to disprove that particular view. In addition to this, the current position of an individual concerning a particular topic is envisaged to be founded on the argument that a person seems to be aware of (Saks, 1977). Throughout the group discussions, the group members will have to present his or her argument that might support his or her individual opinion. Since the group might be learning in a given course, there might arise different point of view put forward in supporting the first learning of the group members (Nuñez, McCrea & Culhane, 2011). Due to this, every member of the group is concealed to the fresh point of views that supports the preliminary learning of the groups, and such prevalence of sentiments inclined in a specified course polarizes the group member's views. In support of the predictions made by the persuasive arguments theory, studies have established that the total of the new point of opinion outlined in a case is closely interrelated to the total polarization and the chances for the existence of significant group polarization without discussions.
It is it is critical to mention that the group polarization is partly founded on the proper response of an individual and more importantly, the social individuality that they might obtain from becoming an influential group’s member. According to Saks (1977), the basic idea, in this case, is the fact that the members within own individual desires to develop a constructive social uniqueness, tries to distinguish their group from the rest through the adoption of the extreme beliefs that affects the jury’s decision. Therefore, based on this analysis, it is clear that the quantity of group’s polarization experienced is anticipated to be significantly developed by both the in-group’s norms and the movement away from the norms of other vital out groups.
Despite the fact that most states depend entirely on the judge’s decision within the criminal and civil trials, the judge is considered as the underpinning of the entire legal systems. According to Devine et al., (2001), the trial’s idea by one’s peer has founded on the underlying supposition that a typical person is in a position to make a conversant and a just decision while working as a team in a group. However, numerous problems face the groups which have made the social psychologists question if the judges would make the most important decision and whether a given category of the juries impacts the likely results of the forethought. As mall functional group, the judges have been reported to be capable of generating either an excellent or the worst decision based on various factors (Saks, 1977). Further, the jury’s capability to make an informed decision is founded on both the group’s characteristics and the personal characteristics. However, the jury member features matter a great deal. In addition to this, the status also matters greatly. For instance, the judge members believed to have higher-status professions, males and high level of education and those supposed to speak first hence in a better position to influence the verdict of the jury (Terry, Hogg, & McKimmie, 2000). Just like in a small group, a particular minority member of the can dominate the jury discussion.
The strongest evidence put forward for the significance of the group’s members features in the process of making decisions related to death-qualified jury’s trials where probable verdict entails execution. For one to take part in the jury, probably individuals ought to point out their willingness in principle to suggest killing as a form of penalty. In other states, prospective jurors indicating signs contrary to supporting execution might not participate on such a jury. Nonetheless, the process of choice would create bias since the individual opposed to execution might be unyielding and disciplinary increasing their probability of finding a defendant in the wrong, which enhances their likelihood of being convicted (Terry, Hogg, & McKimmie, 2000).
Despite the fact that there exists particular member’s features that influence the jury’s verdict, the group processes as seen in other groups will continue playing a critical function in determining the result of the decision of the jury than the member characteristics. Just like any other group, the jury will establish their norms with insightful influence on how they arrived at their pronouncement (Saks, 1977). The group process examination within the jury confirmed that various juries assume diverse approaches to reach a decision. According to Devine et al., (2001), there are those who tend to spend the considerable amount of time in the initial planning while on the other hand, there are those who immediately jump right into deliberation. Some juries, on the contrary, establish their discussions within substantiation’s evaluation and restructuring, while other juries primarily determine a verdict that is favourite within a group through taking a poll and systematize their discussions within such judgments. The two methods are often adopted uniformly however in other instances they result in a different decision.
An essential conformity pressures tend to have a powerful impact on the decision-making process of the jury. In a situation where there exist a greater number of the members of the jury holding the preponderance position, then it is very likely that their last view might triumph throughout the decision-making process (Terry, Hogg, & McKimmie, 2000). However, this might not imply that the minorities are weakly convincing; however, it is often challenging to them. The stronger pressure coming from the mainstream is often as a result of the informational conventionality for instance there exist increased point of views in support of the unusual situation which entails individuals who are least probable to be seen as contradictory with the preponderance view (Terry, Hogg, & McKimmie, 2000). On the other hand, the juries who are evenly split such as six to six often seem to show significant clemency prejudice through voting towards the exoneration that they vote towards guiltiness. It can be argued to be the case because the juries are strictly instructed to assume a defendant innocent until it is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt using sufficient and reliable proof to authenticate culpability. Further, there ought to be the aspect of proving one guilty beyond the logical uncertainty. In most instances, it has been shown that clemency partiality in jury often does not take place even though it has a higher chance to occur when a potential penalty is more severe (Devine et al., 2001).
In conclusion, given the fact that an individual understands the possible complexity that the group often faces in making an excellent decision, one might be apprehensive that the ultimate verdict that might be rendered by the jury might not be significantly efficient, fair or even accurate. However, irrespective of such concerns, the evidence has shown that the jury might not do as badly as most people expect. Further, it has been demonstrated that the reflection procedure often seems to terminate individual juror prejudice and the significance of the verdict often lead the jury’s members to take into consideration the substantiation cautiously.
References
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, public policy, and law , 7 (3), 622.
Nuñez, N., McCrea, S. M., & Culhane, S. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?. Behavioral sciences & the law , 29 (3), 439-451.
Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule (pp. 15- 16). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & McKimmie, B. M. (2000). Attitude‐behaviour relations: the role of in‐group norms and mode of behavioural decision‐making. British Journal of Social Psychology , 39 (3), 337-361.
