Perimortem cesarean section.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cesarean Section↗
Biomedical subjects
N L Kerr
Publications and source records attributed to N L Kerr.
Motivation gains in performance groups: paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect.
In contrast to many demonstrations of social loafing, relatively few studies have documented group motivation gains. One such exception was O. Köhler's (1926, 1927) finding that team members working together did better at a taxing persistence task than would be expected from their individual performances, particularly when there was a moderate discrepancy in coworkers' capabilities. In Experiment 1, we developed a paradigm within which Köhler's overall motivation gain effect could be replicated, although the discrepancy in coworkers' capabilities did not moderate these motivation gains (after statistical artifacts were taken into account). Experiment 2 indicated that this motivation gain occurred under conjunctive but not under additive task demands, suggesting that the instrumentality of one's contribution to valued outcomes is a more likely explanation of the Köhler effect than social comparison processes.
Cooperative Behavior↗
Earnings of male and female physicians.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Female↗
Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors' bias for leniency.
Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. We hypothesized that the asymmetry effect was caused by an asymmetric prodefendant standard of proof--the reasonable-doubt standard. In Experiment 2, subjects received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some subjects deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other subjects privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings is discussed.
Adolescent↗
The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the functional equivalence of different sized juries (at least in the range of 6- to 12-person groups). Several formal models of jury decision making predict that larger juries should hang more often, particularly for very close cases. Failures to confirm this prediction in several previous studies were attributed to inadequate sample sizes or to insufficiently close cases. An experimental simulation study that minimized these problems was undertaken to test the models' prediction. Social decision scheme and social transition scheme analyses permitted comparisons of the decision-making processes of the different-sized mock juries. The effect of the method used to poll group members' verdict preferences was also examined. As group size increased, the observed probability of a hung jury increased significantly. No process differences between 6- and 12-person groups were detected, but 3-person groups did exhibit several process differences from the larger groups. When cases were very close, the likelihood of a hung jury for typically sized juries was found to be lower when the group was polled by secret ballot than when a show-of-hands polling method was used.
Confidentiality↗