An Experimental Study of Jury Voting Behavior

  • Chapter
The Political Economy of Governance

Part of the book series: Studies in Political Economy ((POEC))

  • 1049 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter uses experimental analysis to test the Feddersen and Pesendorfer (American Political Science Review 92(1):23–35, 1998) theoretical results regarding the Condorcet jury theorem. Under the assumption that jurors will vote strategically (rather than sincerely based on private information), Feddersen and Pesendorfer derive the surprising conclusion that a unanimity rule makes the conviction of innocent defendants more likely, as compared with majority rule voting. Previous experimental work largely supported these theoretical predictions regarding strategic individual behavior, but failed to find support for the conclusions about the relative merits of unanimity and majority rule procedures in terms of group decisions. We extend this literature with an experiment in which the cost of convicting an innocent defendant is specified to be more severe than the cost of acquitting a guilty defendant. This payoff asymmetry results in a higher threshold of reasonable doubt than the 0.5 level used in earlier studies. We find very little evidence of the strategic voting predicted by theory (even for our asymmetric payoff structure) and no difference between the use of unanimity and majority rules. Overall, it was very difficult for the juries in our experiment to achieve a conviction, and no incorrect convictions occurred. Our experimental results suggest that the standard risk neutrality assumption can lead to misleading conclusions. We argue that a high cost associated with convicting the innocent can interact with risk aversion to produce an even higher threshold of reasonable doubt than would result from risk neutrality, which tends to neutralize the negative effects of strategic voting under a unanimity rule.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 85.59
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 105.49
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 105.49
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Ladha (1992) and references therein for a discussion of the restrictive nature of the assumptions of the Condorcet jury theorem and the effects of relaxing them.

  2. 2.

    The design is motivated by the earlier work of Austen-Smith and Banks (1996), who showed that it is not always a Nash equilibrium to vote informatively in games with asymmetric information. Indeed, informative voting is not a Nash equilibrium in the Ladha et al. setup. The intuition is that even if a person believes that the others are voting informatively, the only way that a person’s vote could be decisive in a three-person setting is if the other two split, which would imply that each person saw a different signal (under informative voting). The information structure for the private signals was such that the signal associated with one of the options, W, was particularly decisive. In particular, if at least one other person observed the signal that would produce a vote for W under informative voting, then the others’ beliefs based on this knowledge would make them prefer to vote for W regardless of their own signals, so informative voting cannot be a Nash equilibrium in this setup.

  3. 3.

    To see that there is a symmetric equilibrium with uninformative voting (the same vote for option W regardless of one’s own private signal), note that this voting behavior is a best response to uninformative voting for option W by the others, since a single vote does not affect the outcome.

  4. 4.

    Guarnaschelli et al. (2000) also consider the predictions of a quantal response equilibrium (McKelvey and Palfrey 1995). This equilibrium generalizes the notion of a Nash equilibrium, introducing some randomness in individual decisions while preserving the consistency of belief and choice proportions. They conclude that the quantal response equilibrium provides a better explanation of group outcomes in their experiment.

  5. 5.

    At the end of every session, there were two additional periods of voting. In one of the periods, subjects faced higher payoffs than in the first 20 rounds, and in the other period, payoffs were asymmetric across subjects. The results from those two periods of voting are not included in this paper.

  6. 6.

    The unit of observation for the Wilcoxon tests is the subject-level probability of voting guilty conditional on observing a specific signal for the ten periods of the experiment conducted with a particular voting rule. Thus, there were a total of 72 observations for each test. As a robustness test, we also performed the Wilcoxon tests at the session level by averaging the subject-level probability of voting guilty conditional on observing a specific signal with a particular voting rule for each session. This resulted in a total of six observations for each test. By using session-level data, we allow for the possibility that decisions are not independent across subjects within a particular experimental session. Using the session-level data, we find marginally significant order effects when subjects see an innocent signal under the unanimity voting rule (z = 1.964) and when subjects see a guilty signal under majority rule (z = 1.964).

  7. 7.

    This possibility was suggested to us by an anonymous referee.

  8. 8.

    Using the individual-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 72), z = 0.182 for the Wilcoxon test. Using the session-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 6), z = 0.560 for the Wilcoxon test.

  9. 9.

    Using the individual-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 72), z = 0.182 for the Wilcoxon test. Using the session-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 6), z = 0.320 for the Wilcoxon test.

  10. 10.

    The Z-stats presented in Table 4 use the individual-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 72). When we use the session-level average probability as the unit of observation (N = 6), all of our results hold qualitatively. Specifically, individual voting behavior is significantly different from the Nash prediction for every comparison in Table 4.

  11. 11.

    For the Wilcoxon tests regarding group decisions, we use the session-level number of incorrect decisions for a particular voting rule as the unit of observation. Thus, there were a total of six observations for each voting rule. Using the same session-level unit of observation, we also did a Wilcoxon test for treatment order effects and concluded that the number of jury errors was not significantly different when majority rule was in effect for the first ten periods versus when unanimity rule was in effect for the first ten periods (z = 0.801).

  12. 12.

    Recall that the true state (innocent or guilty) was randomly determined by the throw of a six-sided die and was a priori 50 %. Over all 120 periods of voting in the experiment, the true state was innocent in 67 periods and was guilty in 53 periods.

  13. 13.

    All of the Wilcoxon results presented in Table 6 use the session-level probability of reaching a particular group decision. Thus, the number of observations is 6 for each test.

References

  • Ali, S. N., Goeree, J. K., Kartik, N., & Palfrey, T. R. (2008). Information aggregation in standing and ad hoc committees. American Economic Review, 98(2), 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. S. (1996). Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. American Political Science Review, 90, 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, P. (2000). In defense of unanimous Jury verdicts: Mistrials, communication, and strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Death Penalty Information Center. Innocence: List of those freed from death row. http://www.dealthpenaltyinfo.org.

  • Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). An experimental study of jury decision rules. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladha, K. K. (1992). The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 617–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladha, K., Miller, G., & Oppenheimer, J. (1996). Information aggregation by majority rule: Theory and experiments. Working Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, H. (2001). Pivotal voting. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13, 111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis de Condorcet, J. A. M. N. C. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse á la probabilité des decisions rendues á la pluralité des voix. Paris, France: Imprimerie Royale.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R., & Palfrey, T. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, B. (2014). 5 Exonerated in Central Park Jogger case agree to settle suit for $40 million. The New York Times, June 19, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa R. Anderson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: Derivations of Nash Equilibria and Model Predictions

Our parameters

Probability the signal matches the true state: \( p=0.75 \)

Threshold of reasonable doubt: \( q=0.667 \)

Number of jurors: \( n=12 \)

Number of guilty votes required to convict under majority rule: \( \widehat{k}=10 \)

Note that while here our threshold of reasonable doubt is 0.667, and we added $4 to all of the payouts in the experiments, these computations remain valid.

  1. A.

    Nash equilibrium probability a juror will vote guilty after observing an innocent signal under unanimity voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, p. 26, Equation 3)

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill \sigma (i)=\frac{{\left(\frac{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-p\right)}{qp}\right)}^{1/(n-1)}p-\left(1-p\right)}{p-{\left(\frac{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-p\right)}{qp}\right)}^{1/(n-1)}\left(1-p\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill \sigma (i)=\frac{{\left(\frac{\left(1-2/3\right)\left(1-3/4\right)}{2/3\times 3/4}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}\left(3/4\right)-\left(1-3/4\right)}{3/4-{\left(\frac{\left(1-2/3\right)\left(1-3/4\right)}{2/3\times 3/4}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}\left(1-3/4\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill \sigma (i)=0.720389\hfill \end{array} $$
  2. B.

    Nash equilibrium probability a juror will vote guilty after observing an innocent signal under majority rule voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, pp. 33–34, Appendix B)

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill \sigma \left(i,\widehat{k}\right)=\frac{p\left(1+f\right)-1}{p-f\left(1-p\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill \sigma \left(i,\widehat{k}\right)=\frac{0.75\left(1+0.641859\right)-1}{0.75-0.641859(0.25)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill \sigma (i)=0.392502\hfill \end{array}, $$

    where f is determined by

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill f={\left(\frac{1-q}{q}{\left(\frac{1-p}{p}\right)}^{n-\widehat{k}+1}\right)}^{1/(k-1)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill f={\left(\frac{1-0.667}{0.667}{\left(\frac{1.75}{0.75}\right)}^{12-10+1}\right)}^{1/(10-1)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill f=0.641859\hfill \end{array} $$
  3. C.

    Probability an innocent defendant will be convicted under unanimity voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, p. 26)

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {l}_i\left(p,q,n\right)=\frac{\left(2p-1\right){\left(\frac{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-p\right)}{qp}\right)}^{1/(n-1)}}{p-\left(1-p\right)\left({\left(\frac{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-p\right)}{qp}\right)}^{1/(n-1)}\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_i\left(0.75,0.667,12\right)=\frac{\left(2(0.75)-1\right){\left(\frac{\left(1-0.667\right)\left(1-0.75\right)}{(0.667)(0.75)}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}}{0.75-\left(1-0.75\right)\left({\left(\frac{\left(1-0.667\right)\left(1-0.75\right)}{(0.667)(0.75)}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_i\left(0.75,0.667,12\right)=0.790312\hfill \end{array} $$
  4. D.

    Probability a guilty defendant will be acquitted under unanimity voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, p. 26)

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {l}_o\left(p,q,n\right)=1-\left(\frac{\left(2p-1\right)}{p-\left(1-p\right)\left({\left(\frac{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-p\right)}{qp}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}\right)}\right)\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_o\left(0.75,0.667,12\right)=1-\frac{\left(2(0.75)-1\right)}{0.75-\left(1-0.75\right)\left({\left(\frac{\left(1-0.667\right)\left(1-0.75\right)}{(0.667)(0.75)}\right)}^{1/(12-1)}\right)}\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_o\left(0.75,0.667,12\right)=0.069895\hfill \end{array} $$
  5. E.

    Probability an innocent defendant will be convicted under majority rule voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, p. 30)

    $$ {l}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)={\displaystyle \sum_{j=\widehat{k}}^n\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill n\hfill \\ {}\hfill j\hfill \end{array}\right){\left({\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^j{\left(1-{\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^{n-j}}, $$

    where

    $$ {\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)=\left(1-p\right)\sigma \left(g,\widehat{k}\right)+p\sigma \left(i,\widehat{k}\right) $$

    Our parameters and above give

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)=\left(1-0.75\right)(1)+(0.75)(0.392502)\hfill \\ {}\hfill {\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)=0.5443765\hfill \end{array} $$

    Since for us

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill \widehat{k}=10\hfill \\ {}\hfill R=12\hfill \end{array} $$

    we need only to find the sum

    $$ {\displaystyle \sum_{j=10}^{12}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill n\hfill \\ {}\hfill j\hfill \end{array}\right)\kern0.5em {\left({\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^j{\left(1-{\gamma}_I\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^{n-j}} $$

    Thus,

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {l}_I(10)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 10\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.5443765)}^{10}{\left(1-0.5443765\right)}^2 \\ \qquad\quad+\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 11\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.5443765)}^{11}{\left(1-0.5443765\right)}^1\hfill \\ {}\hfill \kern1em \qquad+\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 12\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.5443765)}^{12}{\left(1-0.5443765\right)}^0\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_I(10)=0.038795\hfill \end{array} $$
  6. F.

    Probability a guilty defendant will be acquitted under majority rule voting from Feddersen and Pesendorfer (1998, p. 31)

    $$ {l}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)=1-{\displaystyle \sum_{j=\widehat{k}}^n\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill n\hfill \\ {}\hfill j\hfill \end{array}\right){\left({\gamma}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^j{\left(1-{\gamma}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)\right)}^{n-j}}, $$

    where

    $$ {\gamma}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)=p\sigma \left(g,\widehat{k}\right)+\left(1-p\right)\;\sigma \left(i,\widehat{k}\right) $$

    Our parameters and above give

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {\gamma}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)=(0.75)(1)+\left(1-0.75\right)(0.392502)\hfill \\ {}\hfill {\gamma}_G\left(\widehat{k}\right)=0.8481255\hfill \end{array} $$

    Thus, we have

    $$ \begin{array}{c}\hfill {l}_G(10)=1-\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 10\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.8481255)}^{10}{\left(1-0.8481255\right)}^2\\ \qquad\qquad-\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 11\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.8481255)}^{11}{\left(1-0.8481255\right)}^1\hfill \\ {}\hfill \kern1em \qquad-\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 12\hfill \\ {}\hfill 12\hfill \end{array}\right){(0.8481255)}^{12}{\left(1-0.8481255\right)}^0\hfill \\ {}\hfill {l}_G(10)=0.72935\hfill \end{array} $$

Appendix 2: Instructions for Unanimity Treatment

This is an experiment in the economics of decision-making. Various agencies have provided funds for the experiment. Your earnings will depend partly on your decisions and partly on chance. If you are careful and make good decisions, you may earn a considerable amount of money, which will be paid to you, in cash, at the end of the experiment today. The experiment will consist of three parts. We will throw a six-sided die at the end of the session. If the result of the die throw is 1, 2 or 3, you will be paid 1/2 of your cumulative earnings for Part I and all of your earnings for Part IIIa of the experiment. If the result of the die throw is 4, 5, or 6, you will be paid 1/2 of your cumulative earnings for Part II and all of your earnings for Part IIIb of the experiment. In addition, you will be paid $6 for showing up today.

We will begin by reading these instructions out loud. Please follow along. If you have any questions as we are reading, raise your hand and your question will be answered for everyone.

Before beginning, we will choose one of you to assist us in the experiment today. This person, who will be called the monitor, will help us by throwing dice and drawing colored balls from a container. The monitor will also observe procedures to ensure that the instructions are followed. The monitor will be paid the average of what all participants earn. We will now assign each of you a number from 1 to 13, and we will throw a 20-sided die to select the monitor.

In this experiment, you will be asked to predict from which randomly chosen cup a ball was drawn. We will begin by having the monitor roll a six-sided die behind a screen at the front of the room. If the roll of the die yields a 1, 2, or 3, we will draw from the blue cup, which contains three blue balls and one red ball. If the roll of the die yields a 4, 5, or 6, we will draw from the red cup, which contains three red balls and one blue ball. Therefore it is equally likely that either cup will be selected. Since the monitor will roll the six-sided die behind a screen, you will not see the result of the die throw or know which cup is being used for the draws.

Blue cup

Red cup

Used if the die roll is 1, 2, or 3

Used if the die roll is 4, 5, or 6

Contents: 3 blue balls and 1 red ball

Contents: 3 red balls and 1 blue ball

2.1 Private Draws

Once a cup is determined by the roll of the die, we will empty the contents of that cup into an unmarked container. (The container is always the same, regardless of which cup is being used.) Then we will approach each of you and draw a ball from the container. The result of this draw will be your private information and should not be shared with other participants. After each draw, we will return the ball to the container before making the next private draw so the contents of the container are always the same when we make a private draw. Each person will have one private draw, with the ball being replaced after each draw.

2.2 The Voting Process

After each person has seen a private draw, we will begin the voting process. We will approach each of you to ask for your vote: Vote “B” if you think the blue cup was emptied into the unmarked container or “R” if you think the red cup was emptied into the unmarked container. After everyone has voted, we will announce the total number of “R” and “B” votes and the monitor will announce the color of the cup that was actually emptied into the unmarked container.

2.3 Your Payoff

Your money payoff for the period depends on the cup that was actually used and the “group decision. The group decision is red if at least 10 of the 12 people vote “R.” Otherwise, if three or more people vote “B,” the group decision is blue.

Your dollar payoffs are summarized in the table below. Any correct decision earns each member of the group a $4 payoff. A correct group decision is one that matches the cup actually used. If the group decision is blue and the red cup was actually used, each member of the group earns a $2 payoff. Finally, there are no money payoffs if the group decision is red and the cup used for the draws was actually blue.

 

Cup used is blue

Cup used is red

Group decision is blue

Your payoff is $4

Your payoff is $2

Group decision is red

Your payoff is $0

Your payoff is $4

2.4 Decision Sheet

This part of the experiment will consist of ten periods. The results for each period will be recorded on a separate row on the decision sheet that follows. The period numbers are listed on the left side of each row. Next to the period number is a blank that should be used to record the draw (blue or red) that you see when we come to your desk. Write b (for blue) or r (for red) in column (0) at the time the draw is made. Column 1 contains spaces to record your vote and the total number of blue and red votes, which will be announced at the end of each period. Once you see your draw, you should write your vote (B or R) in the column labeled “your vote.” At the end of each period, the monitor will announce the group decision and the color of the cup that was actually used. Record the group decision (blue or red) in column (2) and the color of the cup actually used for the draws in column (3). Recall that if at least ten of the twelve people voted “R,” and the red cup was actually used, then each of you earns $4. However, if at least ten of the twelve people voted “R” and the blue cup was actually used, then each of you earns nothing. If fewer than ten people vote “R,” the group decision is blue, and you each earn $4 if the blue cup was actually used or $2 if the red cup was actually used. Notice that the payoff for an incorrect group decision of blue is higher than the payoff for an incorrect group decision of red. You should record your earnings for the period in column (4) and keep track of your cumulative earnings for all periods in column (5).

Before we begin the periods that determine your earnings, we will go through one practice period. In this practice period, the monitor will throw the die that determines which cup will be used, and you will each see a draw from that cup. However, unlike in the periods that determine your earnings, you will observe the throw of the die, your draw will not be private, and you will not be asked to vote in this practice period.

At this time the monitor will throw the die that determines which cup is to be used. Remember that the blue cup is used if the throw is 1, 2, or 3, and the red cup is used if the throw is 4, 5, or 6. Now we will come to the desk of each person and show them a private draw from the unmarked container. If this were not a practice period, this person would record the color of the ball (b or r) in column (0). Recall that each person will have one private draw with the ball being replaced after each draw. After each person has seen a private draw, each person should record a vote, B or R, in the column labeled “your vote.” Then we will come to each desk and tally the total number of B and R votes.

Are there any questions before we begin the periods that determine your earnings? Please do not talk with anyone during the experiment. We will insist that everyone remain silent until the end of the last period. If we observe you communicating with anyone else during the experiment, we will pay you your cumulative earnings at that point and ask you to leave without completing the experiment.

At this time, the monitor will throw the die that determines which cup is to be used. Remember that the blue cup is used if the throw is 1, 2, or 3, and the red cup is used if the throw is 4, 5, or 6. Now we will bring the container to each person’s desk and draw a ball from the unmarked container. After you see a private draw, record the color of the ball (b or r) in column (0), and then we will return the ball to the unmarked container before approaching the next person.

2.5 Part II (Was Distributed After All Ten Periods of Part I Were Completed)

The group decision will be determined differently for the remaining periods of the experiment. The group decision is red if all of the 12 people vote “R.” Otherwise, if one or more people vote “B,” the group decision is blue. Notice that we require a unanimous vote to make red the group decision, but if any one person votes “B,” then the group decision is blue. The contents of the cups and the payoffs will remain the same as summarized on your new Decision Sheet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anderson, L.R., Holt, C.A., Sieberg, K.K., Oldham, A.L. (2015). An Experimental Study of Jury Voting Behavior. In: Schofield, N., Caballero, G. (eds) The Political Economy of Governance. Studies in Political Economy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15551-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation