Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Kaplan, Charles Miller (1983)
Group Discussion and Judgment
P. Paulus (1983)
Basic group processesContemporary Sociology, 14
S. Asch (1956)
Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority., 70
R. MacCoun, N. Kerr (1988)
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.Journal of personality and social psychology, 54 1
J. Campbell, Patricia Fairey (1989)
Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57
M. Kaplan, Charles Miller (1987)
Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
V. Hamilton, R. Hastie, Steven Penrod, N. Pennington (1985)
Inside the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 14
R. Cialdini, Carl Kallgren, R. Reno (1991)
A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human BehaviorAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24
R. Rosenthal, R. Rosnow (1985)
Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance
S. Kassin, V. Smith, W. Tulloch (1990)
The dynamite chargeLaw and Human Behavior, 14
P. Marcus (1978)
The Allen Instruction in Criminal Cases: Is the Dynamite Charge about to be Permanently Defused?Missouri law review, 43
M. Deutsch, H. Gerard (1955)
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement.Journal of abnormal psychology, 51 3
N. Kerr, R. Bray (1981)
The Psychology of the courtroom
L. Walker, J. Thibaut, V. Andreoli (1972)
Order of Presentation at TrialYale Law Journal, 82
Garold Stasser, N. Kerr, R. Bray (1981)
The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product.
When juries report that they are deadlocked, judges often deliver the dynamite charge, a supplemental instruction that urges jurors to rethink their views in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict. The present study evaluated the impact of this procedure on 378 subjects who participated in 63 deadlocked mock juries. Results indicated that the dynamite charge caused jurors in the voting minority to feel coerced and change their votes, reduced the pressure felt by those in the majority. and hastened the deliberation process in juries that favored conviction. These findings raise serious questions concerning the use of this controversial charge.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Dec 1, 1993
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.