Source of article 2's Company - Magnus Insights.

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people behave in groups. There are many areas of research within social psychology, however, they share a common focus on how individual and group interactions are shaped by one’s external environment, specifically, other people. Numerous research findings have demonstrated the impact of the group on individual performance, with some studies revealing a positive effect and others, a negative effect. Positive effects of a group on individuals include satisfying our need for belonging, obtaining information, and defining social identity. Negative effects of groups on their members include groupthink, social loafing, and mob behavior. Juries are, of course, a specific type of task oriented group. The primary purpose of juries is to reach a group decision, called a verdict, thereby determining the outcome of a trial. Whether the jury is comprised of 6 or 12 people, or some other number, the common goal among all juries, both on criminal and civil cases, is to work together as a group to make a decision. Social psychologists and legal scholars have studied jury decision making for many decades and in general, have concluded that juries make better decisions than individual jurors make when acting alone, without the need to reach unanimity or majority agreement. Magnus has conducted mock jury research studies involving thousands of mock jurors in its 3 decades of existence. Believe me when I tell you that, unless you have had the opportunity to observe a group of strangers being required to work together toward a common goal, you have no idea what lengths they will go to in order to accomplish this goal. Reaching a group decision, that is, a verdict, causes lots of conflicts when not everyone has the same opinion about what the outcome should be. Bargaining and negotiation are almost always part of jury deliberations. It is rare for any group of people, including juries, to agree 100% about everything at the outset of a discussion. Whether the minority opinion holders can change the majority’s opinions depends on many factors; the power of the opinion leader (who may or may not be the jury foreperson) varies across groups; and reliance on visual aids, such as demonstrative evidence, fluctuates widely from jury to jury. In the end, however, I can state with confidence that most of the people who participate in Magnus’ mock jury research have good intentions and they try, hard, to do the right thing. Although it is often difficult for them to reach unanimity, the jurors usually work together in a positive manner as they strive for justice. The jury, in my expert opinion, is truly greater than the sum of its individual juror parts. Case closed.