Question

A jury member who initially feels that a strict penalty should be placed on the defendant votes for an even stricter penalty after deliberation with the other jury members. This behavior is best described by which social phenomenon? a. Social facilitation b. Group polarization c. Assimilation d. Socialization

Short answer

b. Group polarization

Step-by-step solution

- Understand the behavior

Identify the change in the jury member's opinion. Initially, the jury member felt that a strict penalty should be placed. After deliberation, the jury member votes for an even stricter penalty.

- Analyze the options

Examine each given option: a. Social facilitation: Performance improvement in the presence of others. b. Group polarization: Tendency of group members to move to an extreme position after a discussion. c. Assimilation: Process of adapting or adjusting to the culture of a group or nation. d. Socialization: Process of learning to behave in a way that is acceptable to society.

- Select the best fitting option

The behavior described is best explained by group polarization. After discussions, the jury member's view shifted to a more extreme position than initially held.

Key concepts

social behavior

Social behavior refers to the way individuals interact with one another within groups or societies. It involves communication, cooperation, and the observance of social norms.
In the context of the jury exercise, social behavior can influence each member's opinion and decisions. Here are some key aspects:

• **Communication:** Jury members share their perspectives and reasoning with one another, influencing collective decisions.
• **Norms:** Adhering to societal or group expectations, such as the need for fairness and justice in a verdict.
• **Influence:** Members' opinions can be swayed by the arguments and behaviors of others in the group.

Understanding these elements helps to contextualize how a jury member might change their opinion during deliberation.

jury deliberation

Jury deliberation is the process where jury members discuss and evaluate the evidence to reach a verdict. It's crucial in ensuring fair and just outcomes in trials. Here's a deeper look:

• **Discussion:** Members present their views on the case, considering various aspects such as evidence and testimonies.
• **Debate:** There may be disagreements, leading to debates that aim to reconcile differing opinions.
• **Consensus:** The goal is to reach a unanimous or majority decision, ensuring that the final verdict reflects a collective agreement.

The exercise showcases how deliberation can lead to changes in individual jurors' opinions, often steering them towards more extreme positions.

extreme decision making

Extreme decision making occurs when individuals or groups make choices that are more radical or severe than initially intended. This phenomenon is closely linked to group polarization, and here’s how it works:

• **Group Discussions:** During discussions, people often reinforce one another's beliefs, pushing the group to adopt more extreme positions.
• **Consensus Pressure:** There's a pressure within the group to reach a common agreement, which can sometimes result in exaggerated decisions.
• **Influence of Dominant Members:** Strong influencers within the group can sway others towards more extreme choices.

In the jury exercise, a member who initially favored a strict penalty ended up supporting an even stricter one after discussions, illustrating this concept.

group dynamics

Group dynamics refer to the interactions and processes that occur between members of a group. These can significantly affect decision-making and behavior. Here are key aspects of group dynamics:

• **Roles:** Each member may assume specific roles, such as leader or mediator, influencing the group's direction.
• **Influence:** Some members may have more influence, swaying the group's decisions based on their arguments or status.
• **Conformity:** Members often conform to the group's norms and decisions, seeking harmony and acceptance.

Understanding group dynamics helps explain why a jury member’s opinion changed towards a stricter penalty during deliberation, demonstrating the impact of group interactions on individual decisions.