Lawyers, especially defense lawyers, revere the holdout. In tough cases, they hold out hope for a juror like Juror 8 in the movie 12 Angry Men—the single dissenting juror who, through logic and patience, gradually convinces the other 11 members of the jury to acquit.[2] Research, however, has long shown that the initial majority’s position in a jury deliberation is a strong predictor of the final verdict.
But the holdout phenomenon is not confined to fiction. A 2009 study by Waters and Hans found that approximately 54% of juries in criminal cases contain at least one juror with dissenting viewpoints. Those dissenting jurors were more likely to become holdouts if the majority opinion was for conviction, compared to if the majority opinion was for acquittal. Research has also shown that in approximately 10% of trials, the holdout is effective at convincing the majority to adopt the minority-favored position as the final verdict.[3] Minority positions are more likely to prevail in deliberations where: (1) the proponent of the minority position maintains consistency throughout the discussion, and (2) the jury contains a diversity of viewpoints, which can enhance the group’s cognitive capacity.
When leaders in a deliberation hold firmly to their position, they can command attention from the majority. According to a 1969 study, “the most important aspect of behavioral style is the consistency with which people hold their position.” When a small group steadfastly adheres to their beliefs, it can be unsettling to those in the majority, leading them to question what makes these individuals so convinced and resilient enough to express unpopular views. Consequently, the majority may scrutinize the minority’s perspective more closely and, in some cases, adopt it.[4]
In that 1969 study, called Moscovici’s “Blue-Green Study,” participants were shown various shades of blue and asked to identify the color. In the first condition, two participants were instructed to respond in every trial with “green.” This consistent minority led to a significant increase, 8.42%, in the frequency of other participants reporting they also saw green. In contrast, in the second condition, where two participants were instructed to state that the color was “green” in only two-thirds of the trials, the researchers found only a 1.25% increase in other participants reporting that they also saw green.[5] These findings underscore that when a majority is faced with consistent opposition, they are more likely to reconsider their own views.
Another reason a minority may prevail over a majority is that it sparks divergent thinking and more thorough cognitive processing. When a minority challenges a traditional opinion, it compels the majority to explore alternative strategies and engage in a deeper analysis. A 2004 study found that “the presence of a persistent minority changed the nature of deliberation such that more facts were considered” and “more scenarios of those facts were contemplated.”[6]
In a 2011 experimental design crossing minority dissent with the subsequent departure of the dissenting person, researchers observed that advanced cognitive reasoning increased when dissenting voices influenced the majority’s thinking. The departing dissenter fostered richer thinking and greater integration of new ideas within the group.[7] In essence, a minority perspective can guide the majority by introducing diverse viewpoints, which encourage creative problem-solving and improve decision quality.[8]
From a litigation standpoint, this research suggests that, in some instances, counsel should seek to identify strong leaders within the minority who could shift the course of deliberation and, ultimately, the verdict.
If such a leader on the jury is perceived to favor the adversary’s position, counsel might emphasize the importance of comprehensive information sharing, urging jurors to discuss the full scope of relevant evidence and to think divergently.[9] This approach can reduce group conformity and arm minority jurors with concrete evidence to use in the deliberation room to persuade other jurors.
In sum, trial counsel should remember that the jury’s majority opinion does not always dictate the final ruling. Sometimes, the quiet power of a persistent minority proves to be the most decisive factor.
——————————————————————————————————
References
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current directions in psychological science, 20(1), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
Bowser, A. S. (2013). To conform or not to conform: An examination of the effects of mock jury deliberation on individual jurors (Master's thesis, East Tennessee State University).https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2320&context=etd
Curşeu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Boroş, S. (2012). Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups’ cognitive complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02023.x
Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
Gordon, S. (2015). All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors. Indiana Law Review, 48(2), 415-. https://doi.org/10.18060/4806.0002
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task. Sociometry, 32(4), 365–380.https://doi.org/10.2307/2786541
Nemeth, C., & Goncalo, J. (2004). Influence and Persuasion in Small Groups. Available at:https://escholarship.org/content/qt9n8060j4/qt9n8060j4.pdf; See also, Nemeth, C. J. (1986).
Smith, E., & Mackie, D. (2007). Social psychology. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/mackie/diane/socialemotions/Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007.pdf
Valerie P. Hans, (2007). Deliberation and Dissent: 12 Angry Men Versus the Empirical Reality of Juries, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 579 https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss2/4
[1] Sara Kaplan was a Summer 2025 intern at DRC. This article was competitively selected for publication from among several submitted by DRC summer interns. Sara is in her senior year at Lehigh and will graduate with her B.A. in Political Science & Government in the Spring. She has been hired part time as Jury Research Assistant. DRC thanks her for her contribution.
[2] Valerie P. Hans, (2007). Deliberation and Dissent: 12 Angry Men Versus the Empirical Reality of Juries, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 579https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss2/4
[3] Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current directions in psychological science, 20(1), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
[4] Bowser, A. S. (2013). To conform or not to conform: An examination of the effects of mock jury deliberation on individual jurors (Master's thesis, East Tennessee State University).https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2320&context=etd
[5] Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task. Sociometry, 32(4), 365–380.https://doi.org/10.2307/2786541
[6] Nemeth, C., & Goncalo, J. (2004). Influence and Persuasion in Small Groups. Available at:https://escholarship.org/content/qt9n8060j4/qt9n8060j4.pdf; See also, Nemeth, C. J. (1986).
[7] Curşeu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Boroş, S. (2012). Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups’ cognitive complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02023.x
[8] Valerie P. Hans, (2007). Deliberation and Dissent: 12 Angry Men Versus the Empirical Reality of Juries, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 579https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss2/4
[9] Gordon, S. (2015). All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors. Indiana Law Review, 48(2), 415-. https://doi.org/10.18060/4806.0002