An Exploratory Study of Argument in the Jury Decision-Making Process.
Different from most other group decision-making contexts, courtroom jurors face two distinct layers of argument — arguments made during the trial and arguments made during deliberation. The juror often makes an individual decision prior to deliberation based on arguments heard in court and then, usi...
| Publicado en: | Communication Quarterly Vol. 48; no. 4; pp. 380 - 397 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Fall2000
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507726883&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507726883 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01463373 CQT jtl: Communication Quarterly issn: 01463373 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Fall2000 vid: 48 iid: 4 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 507726883 ppf: 380 ppct: 17 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.1MB tig: atl: An Exploratory Study of Argument in the Jury Decision-Making Process. aug: au: Burnett, Ann Badzinski, Diane M. su: Jury Judicial process Communication in law Argument sug: subj: Jury Judicial process Communication in law Argument ab: Different from most other group decision-making contexts, courtroom jurors face two distinct layers of argument — arguments made during the trial and arguments made during deliberation. The juror often makes an individual decision prior to deliberation based on arguments heard in court and then, using that decision, creates arguments with the other jurors about “what really happened.” The researchers used Canary, Tanita-Ratledge and Seibold's (1982) coding scheme to analyze arguments in 80 mock juries. The results revealed that jurors' arguments were not complex; they used assertions and acknowledgments most frequently, followed by propositions, elaborations, and non-related arguments. The conclusions suggest practical applications for attorneys as well as a model of argument in jury decision-making. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|