Affiliation:
1. Northern Illinois University,
2. Universidad de La Laguna
Abstract
Decision making groups, including European juries, often contain factions differing in status. Mock juries composed of trained and layperson status factions decided guilt and punishment for realistic cases of university code violations. Cases presented predominantly intellective or judgmental issues, and juries had to justify verdicts according to facts alone, or facts and values. Compared to laypersons, trained factions influenced group decisions more, but only in judgmental cases, or when having to include values in justification. They more actively discussed the judgmental cases, and engaged more than laypersons in normative influence. Trained jurors appear to wield social/normative power, impacting judgmental issues more. Consistent with their minority status, laypersons engage in more informational than normative influence. The fact that laypersons are as active in discussing intellective cases as are trained members, and are equally informational in their style of influence, enhances their impact when deciding issues that revolve around gathering facts to reach a correct decision.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Communication,Cultural Studies,Social Psychology
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献