It started when they wondered what would happen if there was a rule for which people perceived there was some ‘wiggle room’. So they examined reactions to a speed limit change.

“Participants read that lowering speed limits in cities would make people safer. Some read that government leaders had decided to reduce speed limits. Of those people, some were told that this legislation would definitely come into effect, and others read that it would probably happen, but that there was still a small chance government officials could vote it down.

People who thought the speed limit was definitely being lowered supported the change more than control subjects, but people who thought there was still a chance it wouldn’t happen supported it less than these control subjects. Laurin [the first author] says this confirms what she suspected about absoluteness; if a restriction is definite, people find a way to live with it.”

It’s an interesting hypothesis. [Thanks to second author Aaron Kay, you can find the full pdf of this article here.]

Consider the impact of rules on sworn jurors.  We have been watching and weighing in on issues on jurors and the internet for a number of years now. Suggestions are often made for how to curtail the issues of the Google mistrial. But they are just that, suggestions. This research advises that we need to be more extreme and absolute and unequivocal in demanding that jurors do no research on the internet about the cases they for which they sit in judgment.  “It’s not a good idea– It’s the law”.  And, of course, as always, it’s critically important to explain the ‘why’.

And one more thing! This isn’t just about explaining Arab Spring or the Google mistrial. It’s also about unrequited love. Back to the press alert:

And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone [on] can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”

As people who have also provided a lot of counseling to the heartbroken (in an earlier phase of professional life) we would suggest that it may be up to the person feeling unrequited to walk away even if the door in your face seemed equivocal.  Aren’t we talking about love?  Ah, but I digress… and yet the lesson is apparent. If you are not interested, be perfectly clear. Crystal clear.

Ultimately, the research appears to affirm a maxim of life that bears reminding; we tend to hear and see what we want, unless it is inescapably clear that only one thing is being said.  Whether we like it or not. Or as Paul Simon put it “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Laurin, K., Kay, A., & Fitzsimons, G. (2011). Reactance versus Rationalization: Divergent Responses to Policies that Constrain Freedom. Psychological Science.

Paul Simon lyrics from “The Boxer”

Image

No related posts.

““I am keenly aware that there are convictions set aside all over the country when we learn later during deliberations a juror looked up the keyword or the key name,” the judge said at the hearing, held this month. “We in the judiciary have been discussing this.”

A few moments later, Judge Scheindlin told the lawyers that she would write a pledge that jurors might be required to sign, promising that they would not turn to the Web to look up Mr. Bout or anything related to his trial until it was over.

Those who signed the pledge, Judge Scheindlin said, would be subject to perjury charges if they broke the agreement.”

Jurors researching cases on the internet have been a thorn in the side of the justice system for years. The act of researching and bringing information back to fellow jurors (resulting in mistrial) has been called the “Google mistrial”. The problem has gotten so pervasive, a judge in Minnesota has begun a single-subject blog called Jurors Behaving Badly .

While many papers covered the announcement that Judge Scheindlin was going to require a “juror pledge”, no one seems to have published the actual pledge itself. A widely circulated AP press release was published extensively as the trial opened, all it said was that the pledge had been signed under penalty of perjury.

“Twelve jurors and three alternates were chosen Tuesday during a daylong process. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin required all of them to sign a first-of-its-kind juror pledge, in which they promised not to research any of the issues or parties involved in the trial on the Internet. The pledge contained a signature line after the words: “Signed under penalty of perjury.””

This is a “first of its kind” pledge on a topic that has been written about extensively–with many recommendations for wording. We are grateful to the writer on Twitter who provided us with the actual pledge (thanks @kathilynnaustin).

Here is the actual wording of the juror pledge in the Viktor Bout trial:

I agree to follow all of the Court’s preliminary instructions, including the Court’s specific instructions relating to Internet use and communications with others about the case. I agree that during the duration of this trial, I will not conduct any research into any of the issues or parties involved in this trial. Specifically, I will not use the Internet to conduct any research into any of the issues or parties involved in this trial. I will not communicate with anyone about the issues or parties in this trial, and I will not permit anyone to communicate with me. I further agree that I will report any violations of the Court’s instructions immediately.

Signed under penalty of perjury. 

____________________________

____________________________

(Sign and Print)

Dated: New York, New York

October 11, 2011

Will it work? Or, as some say, will it simply put the idea in jurors’ heads to go do some internet research perhaps finding this transcript submitted by the US Government into evidence? We’ll have to wait and see. But jurors are already doing research and it is simply an automatic act for many to search the internet for information. Research points toward Judge Scheindlin being spot on.

We don’t think it’s gone far enough, but it’s a healthy start. The next steps include a clear statement of the potential penalties for juror misconduct. Not that we want to see people going to jail, but it’s useful for them to appreciate the full importance of their behavior.

Perhaps a signed pledge (under penalty of perjury) will alert them to not research the case front and center for jurors as they proceed through trial. Or at least, imbue them with a full appreciation for the importance of their agnostic role.

We hope so.

Image 

Related posts:

1. Pandora’s Box: The internet, the power of ‘knowledge’, and irrepressible juror curiosity
2. An illusion of privacy…on the internet?
3. When the defendant texts the juror…

But jurors and the internet are not the only behavior causing mistrials. There’s a very odd story out of the UK about an attorney in the courtroom gallery making faces and rolling his eyes at the jury. The jury was so unsettled by this, they sent a note to the judge:

“We find him very distracting and he is making strange faces all the time. We feel very uncomfortable with him.”

The case ended up in mistrial as it turned out the face-making attorney had unsuccessfully prosecuted the female defendant earlier and she said she was disconcerted by him as well.

Strange things can happen in the courtroom as well as in the jury room. We’ve written before about the importance of teaching the jury how to [and how not to] deliberate. New research would say it’s also important to teach juries how to pick their presiding juror. We know the presiding juror is important, in terms of preventing a hung jury. But, the way a presiding juror is selected may also have impact on the deliberation process.

Eckel, Fatas & Wilson (2010) looked at how leaders are chosen and how that selection process relates to group functioning. They had group members participate in a task where everyone saw each other’s scores. Then they assigned group leaders defining a ‘high status’ leader as someone with a high score and a ‘low status leader’ as someone with a low score. What they found was that when leaders were seen as high-status—group members invested more and participated in the task at hand. When group leaders are seen as low-status—group members de-invest and do not participate.

The implications for what you need to communicate to jurors about how to select a presiding juror are clear:

Talk to jurors about the importance of the presiding juror role.

This defines the presiding juror role as ‘high status’.

Talk to jurors about what makes an effective presiding juror.

This helps them see/determine who would be the best choice.

And perhaps teach them how to deliberate so they can have the best chance at working together effectively.

Keep in mind that this is a strange new role for them, and some practical guidance presented in the right tone could be appreciated.

CATHERINE C. ECKEL, ENRIQUE FATAS, & RICK WILSON (2010). Cooperation and Status in Organizations. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12 (4)

We are honored & proud to have made the American Bar Association’s Blawg 100 List. We would appreciate your vote [vote here] for us in the ‘Niche’ category.

Related posts:

1. Twelve (not so) angry men: Increasing participation in jury decision-making
2. Pandora’s Box: The internet, the power of ‘knowledge’, and irrepressible juror curiosity
3. Power, Penises and the Role of the Presiding Juror