The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

This study explored the effects of shared stereotypes and processing goals on jury decision making. Participants were asked to read a case of a man accused of child molestation and decide if the defendant was guilty or not guilty. The study manipulated the judge\u27s instructions (preponderance of evidence or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), the sexual orientation of the defendant (gay or straight), and size of the decision maker (individual or group). Analysis revealed that jurors were more likely to acquit the defendant if they were instructed to follow “reasonable doubt” criteria than “preponderance of evidence” criteria. Further, jurors were more likely to convict when they believed the defendant to be a gay rather than a straight male. There was also an interaction effect of decision maker and judge\u27s instructions such that groups were more likely to acquit in the reasonable doubt condition, whereas for individual jurors there was no effect of judge\u27s instructions. Overall, the effects of shared processing goals (judge\u27s instructions) seemed more potent than shared stereotypes on jury decisions

Good and Bad Group Performance: Same Process—Different Outcomes

Much of the research on small group performance shows that groups tend to outperform individuals in most task domains. However, there is also evidence that groups sometimes perform worse than individuals, occasionally with severe negative consequences. Theoretical attempts to explain such negative performance events have tended to point to characteristics of the group or the group process that were different than those found for better performing groups. We argue that typical group processes can be used to explain both good and bad group performance in many instances. Results from a pair of experiments focusing on two different task domains are reported and used to support our arguments

Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty: A Shared Representations Interpretation

Past research has shown that minorities arguing in favor of the majority opinion within a given population (i.e. the ‘Zeitgeist’) are more powerful sources of social influence than minorities arguing against the normative population opinion (i.e. Clark & Maass, 1988a and b; Paicheler, 1977). We studied the Zeitgeist effect within the context of freely interacting groups discussing the death penalty. In direct contrast to past research, minorities arguing against the death penalty Zeitgeist were more powerful sources of social influence than those arguing in favor of it. Analyses of conversation content and thought-listing data suggest that minorities arguing against the death penalty may have been more influential because they were appealing to a superordinate shared belief system within their respective groups

Framing of majority and minority source information in persuasion - When and how "consensus implies correctness"

Bohner G, Dykema-Engblade A, Tindale RS, Meisenhelder H. Framing of majority and minority source information in persuasion - When and how "consensus implies correctness". Social Psychology. 2008;39(2):108-116.Information about source consensus may either create expectancies of message validity that bias subsequent processing, or may determine the amount of message processing. The authors propose that which of the two effects occurs depends on the framing of consensus information. Undergraduates (N = 242) read strong, ambiguous, or weak arguments on an issue; the source was framed as either knowledgeable or similar to participants; source consensus was either low (minority) or high (majority). Dependent variables were the favorability of cognitive responses and postmessage attitudes. As predicted, knowledge framing caused consensus-based assimilation for ambiguous arguments, and contrast for both strong and weak arguments, whereas similarity framing caused extensive processing of minority arguments, but uncritical acceptance of majority arguments

Social Support for Exercise as a Predictor of Weight and Physical Activity Status Among Puerto Rican and Mexican Men: Results From the Latino Men’s Health Initiative

Social support is an important factor in increasing positive health outcomes and positive health behaviors across a variety of disease states including obesity. However, research examining the relationship between social support for exercise and weight and physical activity status, particularly among Latino men, is lacking. This paper examined whether social support for exercise predicted weight and physical activity status and whether the direction of these relationships differ as a function of Hispanic/Latino background (Puerto Rican/Mexican). Participants were 203 men who participated in a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study addressing culture- and obesity-related variables. Both family participation social support and family rewards and punishment social support predicted higher weight status (p \u3c.005 and p \u3c.05, respectively). Friend participation social support did not predict weight status. The direction of the relationship between weight status and family participation social support, family rewards and punishment social support, and friend participation social support did not significantly differ as a function of Hispanic/Latino background. The direction of the relationship between physical activity status and family participation social support, family rewards and punishment social support, and friend participation social support did not significantly differ as a function of Hispanic/Latino background. Findings suggest that increased social support for exercise from family members may be focused on those who need it most—overweight and obese participants. Additional research is needed to explore sociocultural factors that may promote social support, physical activity, and weight loss and maintenance in Puerto Rican and Mexican men