Small-Group Decision Making and Complex Information Task~
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
• __ ----7~. ~'-.. - .• If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. National Criminal Justice Reference Service nCJrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, Small-Group Decision Making and the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. Complex Information Task~ , '\;. r i( 1.0 , I. A Report to the Federal Judicial Center 1.1 - 125 14 16 11111 . 11111 . 11111 . MICROCOPY RES~LUTION TEST CHART 1 I NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOARDS-1963-A ~ I. ,! ..,.,. Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. o Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official , ' . ;f position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. (j .r ,- '''bAr,/: FI LMtD \ "-l .~ T{ _Natlo"n"JInStituteofJiisiIce . __ ._,_."_ .. ,,_-.___ ._._____ L. _J _ ___ 1. United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 o c -~=========-====.t;:;"':::::"~"""~""~-='=:-===="'__"""'=_"" __'_ -·~-l 1 ' I U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice " , This document has been reproduced exactly as recei~e.d from the person or organization ori~lnating It. Points of view or oplnrons stat~d In this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Public Domain .Federal Judicial Center to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (~jCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER sion of the copyright owner. Board The Chief Justice of the United States Chairman Judge John C. Godbold : ! Judge William Hughes Mulligan United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit I Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr. Judge Donald S. Voorhees United States District Court ~LL-GROUP DECISION MAKING AND COMPLEX INFORMATION TASKS District of Columbia United States District Court Western District of Washington Chief Judge William S. Sessions Judge Lloyd D. George United States District Court \ ! Western District of Texas United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada William E. Foley Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts Director A. Leo Levin Deputy Director Michael J. Saks Charles W. Nihan National Center for state Courts Division Directors February, 1981 Kenneth C. Crawford Continuing Education William B. Eldridge and Training Research Jack R. Buchanan Innovations Allce L. O'Donnell and Systems Development Inter-judicial Affairs and Information Services Assistant Director This publication is a product of a study undertaken in Russell R. Wheeler furtherance of the Federal Judicial Center's statutory mis sion to conduct and stimulate research and development on ma'cters of j ud.icial administration. The ana.lyses, conclu sions, and points of view are those of the author. Th is work has been subjected to staff review within the Center, 1520 H Street, N.W. and publication signifies that it is regarded as responsible Washington, D.C. 20005 OO a nd val uable • It should be emphasi zed, however, that on TO-i"· " matters of policy the Center speaks only through its Board. --. I ~ f .~- i NCJRS APR 6 1981 , J fl i ' I TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • . 1 I. THE QUESTION . 5 II. LIMITATIONS OF THE ANSWERS . .' . 8 III. THE FINDINGS . 10 The American Jury • • • . • . • . 10 The Importance of Task . • " .....•. 15 Superior Performance by Groups Compared Cite as M. Saks, Small-G 1Decision Judicial Making Center and 1981). Complex Information Tasks (Fer~up era . to Individuals ••••.•.....• Infer ior Per formance by Groups Compared • 26 to Individuals .•.••••.••..... 34 Enhancing Group Effectiveness • . • • • . 36 The Individuals in the Group. • 39 Jury Composition •. " ..••.• 39 Individual Cognition . • . • • • • 44 APPENDIX . • 51 The Li terature Rev iew . • . • . • . • . The Research Tradition •.•..•.•.. 51 Social Facilitation· ••..•• • 55 • ;, 58 FJC-R-81-1 iii , I ,\ r-\ r IJ j FOREWORD This report by Professor Michael Saks was commissioned ,~ f II by the Federal Judicial Center as part of its program of II research to suppor t the wor k of the Jud icial Confe renee I Subcommittee on Possible Alternatives to Jury Trials in Protracted Court Cases. Professor Saks is a recogni zed scholar in social psychology who has published several important works in the psychology of courtroom conduct, jury [I behavior in particular. His assignment for the Center was I to survey the available research literature on small-group..- i I decision making in order to provide the subcommittee with- IiII the information that might be relevant to their task of_ considering whether juries are capable of competently __ i I deciding complex and/or protracted civ il cases. _v 1 ~I Professor Saks has completed a thorough review of the relevant sources. II His Survey reveals no research data di- ! rectly appl icable to the pressing, practical questions the..- I.. subcommittee faces. It is important that readers of this report not expect a close fit between the results described- he re from the behav ioral sciences and the needs of judges and leg islators who are pondering the practical problems of long-term jury service in cases presenting complex facts and difficult legal issues. Empirical research will be Useful v Preceding page blank i ~f I , : when it has been speciflcal. 1 Y d eSlgne. d to address these . I problems. This report by Professor Saks provides a valuable ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ; I and necessary starting place for thoug~it or proposals about Are juries capable of competently deciding complex such research designs. A. Leo Lev in and/or protracted civil cases? The Federal Judicial Center asked that the research literature on small-group decision making be rev iewed to enl igh ten the cur rent disc uss ion of this question. i I; " ~ThiS report refines the question to a comparison among , various possible decision-making entities: individuals ver-_ sus :Jroups, groups versus other groups, judges versus j u- - ries, juries as currently constituted and managed versus- redesigned jurie~ The available literature includes many thousands of studies conducted within the disciplines of psychology, sociology, speech communication, management science, and others. One important limitation of the pres- ent rev iew is that it has of necess i ty reI ied pr ima r i 1 Y on-- secondary sources, mainly textbooks, monographs, and review_ articles in the field of small-group research. Empirical-. generalizations and conceptual integrations have been ex- .~. J trapolated to the immediate issue of juries deciding complex ,1 i; or protracted cases. Consequently, the conclusions of this report should be considered as "best available guesses" ! . , , based on imperfect information. It is absolutely necessary 1 vi I.... (~, ,:' ! ~~ ~~~--------- - - - ·---___ ~---_....,.....--------------__ -----------...,cr__-----"'~---- 2 3 performed more poorly by groups and by larger 0\ that(:~y seriously considered al ternatHTes -be~ empir ically/" groups; they '-~J \ c tested .") gatn little or no advantage from heterogeneity. Virtually me direct tests of the immediate question./' I 3. The legal fact-finding task, especially in complex IE'" :) C cases, seems to be of the type in which, cet'er is par ibus, '" ~?-'~ ~ .~~~~e: found)" We must, therefore, try to arawQesson~£rom 'II stabl~ patterns and theoretical principles found in the_ large heterogeneous groups perform better than indi\1idU~ smaIl-group research literaturYin order to answer, if only __ 4. The reasons for superior performance by groups tentatively, the question posed to us. In short, the liter-_ include: greater probability of including highly able indi- ature reviewed will answer the question at hand only by_ viduals, increased net resources, greater memory and cogni ana logy. tive processing capacity, enhanced error-checking, increased The findings of the research literature we reviewed may \ stimulation, and competition among viewpoints. be summarized as follows: 5. The one major study that directly compares judge to jury decis ion making 1'S Th A .. J 1.' Whether groups perform better than individuals, and ~ _ e mer1can ury by Kalven and '",---, I Zeisel. whether" one kind of group per forms 'better than another kind A sample of cases in that study were stratified of group, a epends upon interactions wi th other var i ables, according to complexity ("difficulty") of the cases. The the most important being the nature of the tas~ relatively high base rate of judge-jury agreement remained C 2. Tasks that are performed better by g.roups (compared-, virtually as high for complex cases, suggesting that judges to individuals), by larger groups (compared . to smaller~> and juries saw complex cases Similarly, as they did the groups), and by heterogeneous groups (compared to homoge-" other cases. neous groups) are tasks that: permit a division of labor, .. 6. The reasons for superior performance by individuals-' are complex, capitalize on unusually knowledgeable or., (compared to groups) include: tasks being unitary or con-_ skilled members (disj unctive