The Dynamics of Deliberation

The Dynamics of Deliberation If the walls of the jury room could talk, they would tell us that the decision-making process typically passes through three stages. Like other problem-solv- ing groups, juries begin in a relaxed orientation period during which they set an agenda, talk in open-ended terms, raise questions, and explore the facts. Then, once differences of opinion are revealed (usually after the first vote is taken), factions develop, and the group shifts abruptly into a period of open conflict. With the battle lines sharply drawn, discussion takes on a more focused, argumentative tone. Together, ju- rors scrutinize the evidence, construct stories to account for that evidence, and discuss the judge’s instructions. If all jurors agree, they return a verdict. If not, the majority tries to achieve a consensus by con- verting the holdouts through information and social pressure. If unanimity is achieved, the group enters a period of reconciliation during which it smoothes over the conflicts and affirms its satisfaction with the outcome. If the holdouts continue to disagree, the jury declares itself hung.

When it comes to decision-making outcomes, deliberations follow a predict- able course. By interviewing the members of 225 juries, Kalven and Zeisel (1966) sought to reconstruct how these juries split on their very first vote. Out of 215 juries that opened with an initial majority, 209 reached a final verdict consis- tent with that first vote. This finding—which was later bolstered by the results of mock jury studies—led Kalven and Zeisel (1966) to conclude that “the deliberation process might well be likened to what the developer does for an exposed film; it brings out the pic- ture, but the outcome is predetermined” (p. 489). Setting aside Henry Fonda’s Twelve Angry Men heroics, one can usually predict the final verdict by knowing where the individual jurors stand the first time they vote. Juries are not gener- ally more or less subject to bias than the individuals who constitute the groups. Hence, “majority rules” seems to describe what happens not only in juries but in most other small decision-making groups as well.