Take Care With Conformity

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:

You’ll see it often in mock trials: The last measure of mock jurors’ individual leanings on the case will show a healthy disagreement, but once they start deliberating, all or nearly all of them seem to be of one mind. Somehow, conformity has established itself in the earliest moments of discussion. Part of the phenomenon is social. People will check which way the wind is blowing and make the personal choice not to stand out, or people will take a view they once rejected and give it more credibility when they come to find that others accept that view. But beyond the social pressure, new research also suggests that some of the pull toward conformity is cognitive. We conform, not just when we think that the evident majority might have better ideas, but also when we mix together our own thoughts with the thoughts of others and engage in a kind of “mental averaging.”

Reviewed in a post in Jeremy Dean’s Psyblog, the study (Kim & Hommel, 2015) looked at whether conformity arises from simpler mechanisms other than social pressure. In deciding how to behave in a certain situation, we recall our own behavior as well as the behavior of others. “In other words,” Jeremy Dean writes, “we copy other people, but forget that we are copying them, so it feels like our own decision.” It is easy to see how this effect might translate in deliberations: Jurors are thinking their own thoughts while also hearing the thoughts of others, so over time, they start to mix and to average the two, so “my thoughts” and “the thoughts of others” come into closer conformity. The result? Consensus. In that sense, conformity is a good thing: It causes our jury system to work. But in other settings, a premature consensus can be a problem. This post will share a few thoughts on conformity effects in trial and in pretrial research.

In Trial, Defer Juror Discussion

Jurors are commonly instructed not to discuss the case prior to deliberations, but not always. Some have argued, with some justification, that allowing jurors to talk about issues and witnesses, but not to arrive at any conclusions prior to deliberation, is an important way to improve juror comprehension. Arizona, as well as some other states, have experimented with instructions that allow that form of “predeliberation.” This research, however, points to one potential cost of that kind of jury reform. Even assuming that it is possible to draw a hard line between “discussing” on the one hand and “deciding” on the other, such discussions could still create an early conformity within the jury if individual jurors tend to mix or average their own thoughts with the thoughts of others.

In All Small Group Research, Measure Individual and Group Opinion Separately

One common and strong takeaway from research on mock jurors is that individual attitudes and group decisions will differ, sometimes strongly. So one implication is to measure individual and group responses differently, and measure the group responses first. That, of course, is a no-brainer for anyone with a social science background, and for savvy mock trial clients as well. But in some mock trials I’ve observed or heard about, especially the DIY versions generally reserved for lower-level cases, the practice isn’t always followed. It doesn’t take much time, just ask your mock jurors not to talk about the case until you’re ready to hear from them in an interview or in deliberations, and give them a questionnaire before they start talking.

In Focus Group Research, Actively Undermine Conformity

Conformity can be constructive, especially during deliberations. It helps soften sharp edges of disagreement and facilitates a verdict. Without social and cognitive conformity, it is likely that any jury system based on unanimous or super-majority votes would be impossible. So it is helpful, at the right time, during trial. But during a focus group interview, conformity is a killer. It limits feedback that you need to hear. The mock juror who bites her tongue in the context of one jury may have emerged as a leader in another jury with a different composition. So even though she is a follower in this context, it is still important to know what she thinks, because that would bear on other contexts. Focus group facilitators can’t eliminate conformity, at least not without conducting individual interviews, and that would sacrifice the back-and-forth of group interaction. But focus group facilitators can reduce conformity in a few ways:

Tell mock jurors that different views are expected, so it is okay to disagree.
Encourage reappraisal. After someone expresses a strongly-held view, ask “Who disagrees with that?” before finding out who agrees.
When you notice participants who are clearly followers rather than leaders, call on them first.
When a mock juror’s final individual leaning differs from what they voice during deliberations, call them out and ask, “What changed your mind?”

Conformity will always be with us, for both social and cognitive reasons, and there can be a fuzzy line between group and individual opinion. The best advice for encouraging fair deliberations and useful pretrial research is to account for that conformity effect and to try to minimize it when it isn’t useful.

______

Other Posts on Group Decision-making:

______

Kim, D., & Hommel, B. 2015. An Event-Based Account of Conformity. Psychological Science 26 (4) 484-489. http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Conformity%20and%20TEC.pdf

Image Credit: Colin Madland, Flickr Creative Commons (edited).

Your Trial Message

(formerly the Persuasive Litigator blog)

Need to Talk about Race...