Speaking for the institution: A fourth production site for group members' influence attempts

Robert E. Sanders, Joseph A. Bonito

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations


Analysis of the transcript of a jury's deliberations reveals a fourth production site for influence attempts beyond the three identified by Meyers and Brashers. The fourth site involves influence attempts by jurors to uphold the interests of a particular Court and a particular proceeding, and perhaps the interests of the larger judicial system. This gives the Institution a place at the table as an agent of influence, something that arguably generalizes beyond juries to all task groups embedded within organizations. The main part of the analysis identifies three main functions that were served by making the Institution's presence at the table felt-directives, correctives of others' positions and arguments, and justifications of positions and arguments. In addition, the analysis identifies two main ways that participants marked shifts in footing from speaking in their own voice to speaking in the Institution's voice. The first is the use of direct quotations of the Court's instructions. The second is the use of modal auxiliaries such as should and need to, that presuppose an external source of rules and obligations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-451
Number of pages25
JournalSmall Group Research
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 2010


  • Footing
  • Group deliberation
  • Influence
  • Jury
  • Production site

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Applied Psychology


Dive into the research topics of 'Speaking for the institution: A fourth production site for group members' influence attempts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this