{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/19786"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/19786","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"The development and persistence of normative standards in group performance","abstract":"\"Mock grand juries and individual jurors made indictment decisions for four separate cases, each composed of a single \"\"prosecutor's summary\"\" of the evidence, and 11 additional items of evidence. Juries could either examine all or just a few of the additional items on the first two cases (counterbalanced) so that routine standards of appropriate amounts and rates (information gathering and information processing) of information usage would develop. Groups' relatively greater adherence to these standards was predicted. Jurors were placed under accountability pressures on one of the two last cases. Analysis of amounts and rates of information processed indicated groups' poor information processing. A simulation traces the deficit to constraints due to the groups' slowest members. Also, results showed that groups were relatively more reactive to accountability pressures. However, the effect of initial limits on groups were nonsignificant and thus it could not be demonstrated that groups persisted in routine behavior more than individuals.\"","abstract_html":""Mock grand juries and individual jurors made indictment decisions for four separate cases, each composed of a single ""prosecutor's summary"" of the evidence, and 11 additional items of evidence. Juries could either examine all or just a few of the additional items on the first two cases (counterbalanced) so that routine standards of appropriate amounts and rates (information gathering and information processing) of information usage would develop. Groups' relatively greater adherence to these standards was predicted. Jurors were placed under accountability pressures on one of the two last cases. Analysis of amounts and rates of information processed indicated groups' poor information processing. A simulation traces the deficit to constraints due to the groups' slowest members. Also, results showed that groups were relatively more reactive to accountability pressures. However, the effect of initial limits on groups were nonsignificant and thus it could not be demonstrated that groups persisted in routine behavior more than individuals."","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Davis, James H."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-05-07T12:18:29Z","date_published":"2011-05-07T12:18:29Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:14Z","subjects":["Law","Psychology, Social"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright 1994 Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9512409","(UMI)AAI9512409"],"render_values":[{"text":"AAI9512409","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"(UMI)AAI9512409","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19786","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Davis, James H."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2011-05-07T12:18:29Z","10000-01-01","1994"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Law","Psychology, Social"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 1994 Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9512409","(UMI)AAI9512409","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19786"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["\"Mock grand juries and individual jurors made indictment decisions for four separate cases, each composed of a single \"\"prosecutor's summary\"\" of the evidence, and 11 additional items of evidence. Juries could either examine all or just a few of the additional items on the first two cases (counterbalanced) so that routine standards of appropriate amounts and rates (information gathering and information processing) of information usage would develop. Groups' relatively greater adherence to these standards was predicted. Jurors were placed under accountability pressures on one of the two last cases. Analysis of amounts and rates of information processed indicated groups' poor information processing. A simulation traces the deficit to constraints due to the groups' slowest members. Also, results showed that groups were relatively more reactive to accountability pressures. However, the effect of initial limits on groups were nonsignificant and thus it could not be demonstrated that groups persisted in routine behavior more than individuals.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:18:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9512409.pdf: 7489108 bytes, checksum: c92f265723b062c495bf0f1173dcdd2e (MD5) Previous issue date: 1994","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:39:25Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:16:36-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The development and persistence of normative standards in group performance"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Davis, James H."],"dc:creator":["Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"],"dc:date":["2011-05-07T12:18:29Z","10000-01-01","1994"],"dc:description":["\"Mock grand juries and individual jurors made indictment decisions for four separate cases, each composed of a single \"\"prosecutor's summary\"\" of the evidence, and 11 additional items of evidence. Juries could either examine all or just a few of the additional items on the first two cases (counterbalanced) so that routine standards of appropriate amounts and rates (information gathering and information processing) of information usage would develop. Groups' relatively greater adherence to these standards was predicted. Jurors were placed under accountability pressures on one of the two last cases. Analysis of amounts and rates of information processed indicated groups' poor information processing. A simulation traces the deficit to constraints due to the groups' slowest members. Also, results showed that groups were relatively more reactive to accountability pressures. However, the effect of initial limits on groups were nonsignificant and thus it could not be demonstrated that groups persisted in routine behavior more than individuals.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:18:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9512409.pdf: 7489108 bytes, checksum: c92f265723b062c495bf0f1173dcdd2e (MD5) Previous issue date: 1994","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:39:25Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:16:36-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"],"dc:identifier":["AAI9512409","(UMI)AAI9512409","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19786"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 1994 Hulbert, Lorne Geoffrey"],"dc:subject":["Law","Psychology, Social"],"dc:title":["The development and persistence of normative standards in group performance"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:14Z"}