The Tragedy of Groupthink in Juries
In the courtroom, the vital outcome depends solely on the members of the jury. It is frightening to imagine that people holding such an important decision could be subject to groupthink and conformity.
The phenomenon of groupthink has been observed in courtrooms around the globe and continues to be a menace to the justice system. According too Aronson, groupthink is a kind of thinking in which maintaining group agreement overrides a careful consideration of the fact in a realistic manner (433). For example, a juror may avoid presenting their dissenting opinion if all previous opinions are the opposite in order to side-step social tension.
This form of compliance is common in juries because nonconformity is known to cause physiological pain. According to research done by Nicole L. Waters and Valerie P. Hans, one-third of jurors out of three thousand five hundred stated that their decisions would have varied from the final decision had they been in a jury of one. This evidence is supported by Asch’s line experiment in which multiple participants went against their better judgment in order to conform to the group.
Some psychologists advise that when making an important group-decision, a devil’s advocate is always present in order to neutralize cohesiveness. The role of the devil’s advocate consists of making agreements against the opinion of the majority. This results in the avoidance of a false sense of assurance in the final decision. The action of the dissenter undermines the authority held by the majority and may to lead to others following suit. Once a variance has been established, there is more individualistic thinking and conversation is more interactive and progressive. In the line experiment done by Asch, once a dissenter voiced her or his opposing opinion, others felt more comfortable with voice their true thoughts.
Another important aspect of conformity that can drastically impact the outcome of the case is the interest in the activity of the person’s involved. Jurors are likely to conform and vote with the majority if they are not engrossed in the trial proceedings. On the other hand, if jurors are intrigued by goings-on, they tend to be more vocal in their opinions and more motivated to sway other members of the jury towards their opinion in order to reach the conclusion that they feel to be correct. This possession of this knowledge could result in bettering the justice system.