Majority Rules: The Influence of Conformity on Jury Decision-Making
After World War II, citizens and scientists alike wondered how entire populations could commit the atrocities the world had just witnessed. This question prompted social psychologists and researchers such as Solomon Asch to investigate the role that social influence plays in shaping our behavior. [1] Countless studies yielded the same result: the desire to conform is an immensely powerful psychological motivator that can cause good people to make immoral decisions. Asch found that approximately 75 percent of his participants conformed to a group decision they explicitly knew was wrong due to social pressure. [2] These conclusions must prompt deliberations about the influence that conformity has in other areas of the world, such as the legal system. Juries are especially susceptible environments for conformative influences to dominate, as they consist of small groups of people facing pressure to promptly arrive at a unanimous decision. Additionally, conformity plays a larger role in influencing decisions that are more ambiguous or difficult. [1] Judging cases is inherently ambiguous because jurors must evaluate contradictory evidence from both sides. It is also difficult, as jurors bear the responsibility of determining people’s futures. Because the foundations of our legal system rely upon juries reaching logical and equitable conclusions, it is important to understand the role of conformity in the decision-making of jurors. The desire to conform significantly influences jury decision-making and reduces the integrity of verdicts. As such, reforms like expanding jury size and adopting an initial anonymous voting process should be implemented to combat this powerful social motivation.
Studies on the power of conformity in mock juries found that “the final verdict reflected the majority view on the first ballot over 90 percent of the time.” [3] In contrast, the original minority of the jury was only able to change the majority opinion in less than 5 percent of cases. [4] These trends highlight the significant role that conformity has in determining verdicts. Because of the desire to conform, jurors often agree with the majority even if that view does not reflect their genuine opinions. As a result, the initial majority holds a disproportionate level of influence over the final verdict. By virtue of their numerical advantage, the majority inherently exerts influence over the remaining jurors and pressures them to “change their opinion and accept the consensus of the larger group.” [5] This forced compliance may result in verdicts that do not reflect the true opinions of certain jurors, who only agreed because they felt pressured to conform to the will of the larger group. Indeed, over 33 percent of jurors would have privately voted against the decision they publicly supported and reached with the rest of their jury. [6] This is problematic because it suggests conformity encourages blind agreement and discourages open disagreement and deliberation, limiting minority opinions and the expression of jurors’ true thoughts. By fostering verdicts that aren’t fully considered from all perspectives, conformity increases the risk of wrongful convictions and compromises the integrity of jury trials.
To support the equity of verdicts, the American legal system must adopt reforms to combat the role of conformity. Pressure to conform is greater in smaller groups, where dissenting opinions are less likely to emerge. Twelve-person juries foster more balanced discussion and are less susceptible to the effects of social influence because larger groups inherently include greater diversity of perspectives. [7] Accordingly, smaller juries should generally be replaced with juries consisting of twelve people. The potential tradeoffs in resources and efficiency that accompany larger juries are justified by the resulting improvement in verdict quality.
Furthermore, a primary aspect of juries that cultivates conformity is publicity. Conformity is higher when people have to publicly share their opinion, as they face more pressure from social judgment and the possibility of criticism. [1] One way to mitigate this issue is a jury system that requires an initial anonymous submission of votes. This procedure would allow jurors to safely share their independent opinions without being influenced by the views of others. Models of decision-making show that larger groups reach higher-quality decisions because they draw on diverse perspectives; however, this effect only occurs when each individual’s judgment remains independent. [7] Requiring an initial anonymous voting system facilitates the collection of “private information and judgment,” which ensures that each juror can initially state their opinion without social pressure to conform or bias from other jurors. [7]
The social influence of conformity threatens equity in jury trials by silencing minority jurors, discouraging adequate deliberation, and pressuring jurors to publicly endorse verdicts they do not truly agree with. To address these problems, all trials should employ larger juries to minimize the influence of conformity. Additionally, an initial anonymous voting system should be incorporated within the structure of jury trials to foster equal expression of all opinions. Together, these reforms will preserve the integrity of jury trials and the equality that the American legal system strives to maintain.
Edited by Aryana Makati
Endnotes:
[1] “The Power of Conformity: How Good People Do Evil Things.” Big Think, Apr 19, 2022, online at bigthink.com/neuropsych/conformity-2/. (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[2] Asch, Solomon. “The Power of Conformity.” Scientific American, 1955, online at https://www.mayfieldschools.org/Downloads/37%20The%20Power%20of%20Conformity.pdf (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[3] Kalven, Harry, and Zeisel, Hans. “The American Jury: Notes for an English Controversy.” University of Chicago Law School, 1967, online at https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=12045&context=journal_articles (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[4] Kellermann, Kathy. “How Often Does a Jury’s Minority Sway the Majority to Its Point of View?” ComCon, Jan 1, 1970, online at kkcomcon.com/OJRU/ROJR0308-1.htm#:~:text=change%20their%20minds.-,Research,Thanks%20for%20reading (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[5] Lively, Christopher. “How Social Influence Factors Might Impact the Jury.” The Law Foundation, online at www.mun.ca/psychology/media/production/memorial/academic/faculty-of-science/psychology/media-library/research/brl/Lively_LRAPub_2017.pdf (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[6] Waters, Nicole, and Hans, Valorie. “A Jury of One: Opinion Formation, Conformity, and Dissent on Juries.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, online at www.researchgate.net/publication/47704774_A_Jury_of_One_Opinion_Formation_Conformity_and_Dissent_on_Juries (visited Oct 2, 2025).
[7] Baddeley, Michelle, and Parkinson, Sophia. “Group Decision-Making: An Economic Analysis of Social Influence and Individual Difference in Experimental Juries.” The Journal of Socio-Economics, October 2012, online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535712000522 (visited Oct 2, 2025).