All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors

Abstract

We ask juries to make important decisions that have a profound impact on people’s lives. We leave these decisions in the hands of groups of laypeople because we hope that the diverse range of experiences and knowledge in the group will lead to more thoughtful and informed decisionmaking. Studies 1 suggest that diverse groups of jurors have different perspectives on evidence, engage in more thorough debate, and more closely evaluate facts. At the same 2 time, there are a variety of problems associated with group decisionmaking, from the loss of individual motivation in group settings, to the vulnerability of groups, to various cognitive biases and errors. Moreover, jurors are often at a 3 disadvantage because most of them have never served on a jury and many of them have never worked with a group to reach a decision about a complex problem. Compounding these issues, jurors are not typically given instructions 4 or training on working in a group or on effective decisionmaking strategies. Although there is extensive literature examining juries and jury deliberations, this Article is the first to consider all of the major scientific studies that examine training in group decisionmaking and apply them to jury decisionmaking. Many studies have examined group processes and group deliberations in the fields of social psychology, organizational psychology, business administration, advertising, and a variety of related areas. Moreover, countless studies examine 5 group decisionmaking and recommend the use of training to improve group performance. Yet almost none of this interdisciplinary knowledge of group 6 * Associate Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Thank you to Linda Berger, Linda Edwards, Michael Higdon, Elizabeth Pollman, and Kathy Stanchi for their helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks also to the editors of the Indiana Law Review for their valuable editorial suggestions and to Chad Schatzle for his excellent research assistance. 1. David D. Henningsen et al., Role of Social Loafing in Predeliberation Decision Making, 4 GROUP DYNAMICS: THEORY, RES., & PRACTICE 168 (2000). 2. NEIL VIDMAR & VALERIE P. HANS, AMERICAN JURIES 74 (2007). 3. Norbert L. Kerr et al., Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups, 103 PSYCHOL. REV. 687, 713 (1996). 4. Henningsen et al., supra note 1. 5. J. Richard Hackman, Learning More By Crossing Levels: Evidence From Airplanes, Hospitals, and Orchestras, 24 J. ORG. BEHAV. 905 (2003); Steven A. Murphy & Michael L. McIntyre, Board of Director Performance: A Group Dynamics Perspective, 7 CORP. GOVERNANCE 209, 213 (2007); Gwen M. Wittenbaum & Richard L. Moreland, Small-Group Research in Social Psychology: Topics and Trends over Time, 2 SOC. & PERSONALITY PSYCHOL. COMPASS 187, 187 (2008). 6. Herman Aguinis & Kurt Kraiger, Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals 416 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 48:415 dynamics and the efficacy of training on group performance has been applied to one of the most fundamental group decisionmaking bodies—the jury. We can use this literature to create effective juror training procedures and give jurors strategies to more effectively deliberate and reach better group decisions. “Gettin’ good players is easy. Gettin’ ‘em to play together is the hard part.” –Casey Stengel