International Juries

Psychologists tend to categorize countries along a spectrum from individualistic to collectivistic countries. More individualistic countries, such as the United States, tend to prioritize independence, self-expression, and personal freedom. More collectivistic nations, such as South Korea, tend to prioritize community, conformity, harmony, and loyalty. Research suggests that these difference in ideologies can also result in differences in attributions for criminal behavior, with the US attributing crime to the individual (e.g., personality) and South Korea attributing crime to societal factors.

Differences in attribution for crime might influence how juries perceive defendants. For example, Stevenson and colleagues (2010) found American jurors did not think that a defendant’s history of child abuse or alcohol abuse lessened their responsibility for the crime (i.e., a mitigating factor), but instead were likely to see such a history as making the defendant more responsible (i.e., an aggravating factor) for the crime. Lee and colleagues (2025) replicated the study using Korean mock-jurors. Their findings suggest that Korean jurors considered alcohol abuse as an aggravating factor and childhood abuse as a mitigating factor, meaning that the Korean jurors believed the defendant could recover from alcoholism and avoid committing any future crimes while under the influence.

Lee and colleagues also compared the deliberations of the Korean juries to the American juries from the Stevenson et al. (2010) study.  Korean mock-juries were more likely than American mock-juries to consider the consequences of alcohol and childhood abuse as uncontrollable. Korean juries were more likely to discuss the death penalty than American juries. And, surprisingly, American jurors were more likely to conform to the opinions of their peers during deliberation than Korean jurors.

Overall, this study is significant for the field of legal psychology because it analyzes the cultural differences within the judicial system between individualistic and collectivist cultures. The jury system has been an integral part of American democracy, and Western-traditional jury systems have increased in Eastern Asian countries since the late 2000s. While there are concerns about the effectiveness of these systems due to the cultural differences between countries, this study provides evidence of the contrary. It is not a given that collectivist cultures will defer to what their peers think or say to keep the peace or harmony during jury deliberations. This study provides support for the institution of juries across the world.