Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:54:49.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unraveling the Complexities of Decision Making in Face-to-Face Groups: A Contextual Analysis of Plea-Bargained Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Peter F. Nardulli ,
Roy B. Flemming  and
James Eisenstein
Peter F. Nardulli
Affiliation:
University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign
Roy B. Flemming
Affiliation:
Wayne State University
James Eisenstein
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article uses a variety of multilevel data collected from a nine-county study of felony courts to examine the joint effects of contextual and individual level (sociopolitical characteristics of decision workers) upon decisions made in face-to-face groups. The research finds that although the sociopolitical characteristics of decision makers (attitudes toward punishment, Machiavellianism, and operating styles) made a difference in the outcome of interactions, their role could not be accessed independent of the contextual factors surrounding the interactions. Some of the most important contextual factors were the kind of criminal case being handled, prosecutor office policies restricting discretion, and the configuration of attributes in the group handling the case. Although the data are wholly derived from the criminal court setting, the implications of the findings for studying decision making in other face-to-face groups are developed.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 912 - 928
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alschuler, A.The defense attorney's role in plea bargaining. Yale Law Journal, 1915, 84, 1179.Google Scholar
Alschuler, A.The prosecutor's role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review, 1968, 50, 50.Google Scholar
Atkins, B. M., Alpert, L., & Ziller, R.Personality theory and judging: A proposed theory of self-esteem and judicial policymaking. Law and Policy Quarterly, 1980, 2, 189–220.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R.The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 306–318.Google Scholar
Barber, J. D.Power in committees: An experiment in the governmental process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
Barber, J. D.The presidential character. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
Christie, R., & Geis, R. L.Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A.Power. International Encyclopedia of Social Science (Vol. 12). New York: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A.Who governs. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Dorff, R. H., & Steiner, J.Political decision making in face-to-face groups: Theory, methods, and an empirical application in Switzerland. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 368–380.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H.Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.Google Scholar
Feeley, M.The process is the punishment. New York: Russell Sage, 1979.Google Scholar
Fenno, R. F.Congressmen in committee. Boston: Little, Brown, 1973.Google Scholar
Flemming, R.Punishment before trial: An organizational perspective of felony bail processes. New York: Longman, 1982.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. R.In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26, 797–833.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L.From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Political Behavior, 1983, 5, 7–49.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L.Judges' role orientations, attitudes, and decisions: An interactive model. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 911.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L.Personality and elite political behavior: The influence of self-esteem on judicial decision-making. Journal of Politics, 1984, 43, 104–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gist, J. R.Stability and competition in budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 1982, 76, 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golembiewski, R. I. (Ed.). The small group in political science: The last two decades of developments. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Green, E.Judicial attitudes in sentencing. London: Macmillan, 1961.Google Scholar
Gulliver, P. H.Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Hinckley, B.Coalitions and politics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1981.Google Scholar
Hogarth, J.Sentencing as a human process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Howard, J. W.On the fluidity of judicial choice. American Political Science Review, 1968, 62, 43–56.Google Scholar
Jacob, H.Trial courts in the United States: The travails of exploration. Law and Society Review, 1983, 17, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. W.Congressmen's voting decisions. New York: Harper and Row, 1981.Google Scholar
Levin, N.Urban politics and the criminal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Murphy, W. A.The elements of judicial strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Nardulli, P.The courtroom elite: An organizational perspective on criminal justice. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1978.Google Scholar
Nardulli, P., Flemming, R. B., & Eisenstein, J. The complexities of justice: A comparative study of felony courts, 1984, unpublished.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., & Semin, G. R.Mach V: An improved scoring system based on a triadic choice model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 27, 34–40.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. P., Ashman, A., Sales, B. D., & Shane-DuBois, S.American Trial Judges. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Sarat, A.Judging in trial courts: An exploratory study. Journal of Politics, 1977, 39, 368–398.Google Scholar
Uhlman, I. M.Racial justice: Black judges and defendants in an urban trial court. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1979.Google Scholar
Vlemming, R. G.Machiavellianism: A preliminary review. Psychological Reports, 1979, 44, 295–310.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A.The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little, Brown, 1964.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.