The Question: Do younger adults differ from older adults in their psychological orientation toward jury service, particularly with respect to fear, apprehension, and perceived burden?
This research question investigates whether generational membership shapes how people psychologically experience the prospect of jury service.
Definitions:
Generational cohorts experience formative social, political, and technological conditions that shape their orientations toward civic institutions:
- Younger Adults (Millennials and Gen Z): Born roughly between 1981 and 2012, these cohorts came of age during periods of heightened institutional skepticism, pervasive digital connectivity, economic precarity (the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic), and evolving conceptions of civic participation. Their relationship to traditional institutions like courts differs markedly from previous generations.
- Older Adults (Gen X and Baby Boomers): Born between approximately 1946 and 1980, these cohorts experienced formative years when institutional trust remained comparatively robust, civic participation took more traditional forms, and jury service was understood as a fundamental civic obligation rather than an optional burden.
This encompasses the emotional, cognitive, and motivational dimensions of how individuals approach jury service:
Emotional Responses: What feelings does the prospect of jury service evoke? Anxiety? Civic pride? Resentment? Indifference? Do younger and older adults experience systematically different emotional reactions?
Cognitive Appraisals: How do individuals mentally frame jury service? As a meaningful civic contribution? An inconvenient interruption to work and personal life? A solemn responsibility? Do generational differences exist in how people cognitively construct the meaning of jury duty?
Motivational Orientations: What drives willingness (or reluctance) to serve? Sense of civic obligation? Fear of consequences for avoiding service? Genuine interest in participating? Do younger adults experience different motivational pushes and pulls compared to older cohorts?
These three constructs represent distinct but related psychological experiences:
Fear: Anxiety about the jury service experience itself. This might include:
- Fear of making the wrong decision with serious consequences for someone’s life or freedom
- Fear of interpersonal conflict during deliberation
- Fear of being unable to understand complex legal concepts or evidence
- Fear of emotional distress from exposure to disturbing testimony or graphic evidence
- Fear of retribution from parties affected by the verdict
Apprehension: A broader sense of unease or reluctance that may not rise to the level of acute fear but nonetheless creates psychological resistance:
- General discomfort with the unfamiliar court environment
- Uncertainty about what jury service will actually entail
- Concern about one’s ability to fulfill the role competently
- Worry about being judged by other jurors or court personnel
- Nervousness about public speaking or group decision-making
Perceived Burden: The subjective assessment of jury service as costly or disruptive:
- Time away from work, potentially causing income loss or career setbacks
- Interference with caregiving responsibilities (children, elderly parents, etc.)
- Disruption to personal commitments, plans, or routines
- Mental and emotional exhaustion from the deliberative process
- Logistical challenges (transportation, parking, scheduling)
Operationalization:
This study is a systematic comparison of younger and older adults’ psychological responses to jury service. Specific investigation areas include:
- Decision-Making Anxiety: Do younger adults report greater fear of making consequential errors that could wrongly convict an innocent person or wrongly acquit a guilty one?
- Performance Anxiety: Do younger adults express more concern about appearing incompetent or unprepared in front of other jurors, judges, or attorneys?
- Emotional Exposure: Do generational cohorts differ in their fear of psychological distress from exposure to disturbing evidence (violent crime photos, victim testimony, etc.)?
- Social Conflict: Do younger adults anticipate deliberation conflict with greater anxiety than older adults?
- Institutional Unfamiliarity: Do younger adults express more general unease about navigating an unfamiliar court environment and understanding their role?
- Competence Concerns: Do younger cohorts report greater apprehension about their ability to understand legal instructions, evaluate evidence properly, and fulfill juror responsibilities?
- Authority Interaction: Do younger adults feel more or less apprehensive about interacting with judges, attorneys, and other authority figures in formal courtroom settings?
- Group Dynamics: Do generational differences emerge in comfort with group decision-making among strangers?
- Economic Impact: Do younger and older adults assess the financial costs of jury service differently? (Work disruption, income loss, career consequences)
- Time Costs: Do perceptions of time burden differ between cohorts with different life-stage demands (young children vs. established careers vs. retirement)?
- Logistical Challenges: Do younger adults perceive greater difficulty managing transportation, scheduling, and other practical aspects of service?
- Opportunity Costs: What do different age cohorts see themselves sacrificing to serve? Do younger adults perceive higher personal and professional opportunity costs?
The Stakes: Why This Question Matters
The American jury system faces a documented crisis of participation. Jury trials have declined precipitously, from over 150,000 annually in the early 2000s to fewer than 50,000 in 2021. Courts increasingly struggle to summon adequate juror pools, requiring more than double the summonses per trial compared to just a few years ago. Jury yields continue declining, suggesting growing resistance to service across the population.
Simultaneously, generational turnover is reshaping the eligible juror population. Millennials and Gen Z now constitute the largest share of adults eligible for jury service. If these cohorts experience systematically higher levels of fear, apprehension, or perceived burden compared to older generations, this has profound implications:
Courts nationwide report increasing difficulty summoning adequate juror pools. In 2021, courts sent an average of 675 summonses per trial, up from 297 in 2019, a 127% increase in just two years. This suggests growing resistance to jury service. If younger adults experience systematically higher levels of fear, apprehension, or perceived burden, this may partially explain why:
- Jury yields (the proportion of summoned citizens who are qualified and available) continue declining
- No-show rates for jury duty appear to be rising
- Courts struggle disproportionately to seat juries in jurisdictions with younger demographic profiles
Understanding generational differences in psychological orientation helps courts develop targeted interventions. If younger adults fear making consequential decisions, clearer jury instructions and better trial preparation might reduce anxiety. If they perceive jury service as unduly burdensome, compensation reforms or scheduling flexibility might increase participation.
Current jury education materials and civic outreach efforts were developed when Baby Boomers and Gen X dominated jury pools. If Millennials and Gen Z experience fundamentally different psychological barriers to service, these materials may fail to address their specific concerns:
If younger adults fear incompetence: Educational content should emphasize that jurors need no specialized knowledge, that instructions will be provided, and that deliberation is collaborative rather than individual performance.
If younger adults feel apprehensive about conflict: Messaging should demystify the deliberation process, explaining how disagreement is managed constructively and how consensus emerges through respectful dialogue.
If younger adults perceive disproportionate burden: Outreach should acknowledge legitimate concerns about work disruption, caregiving responsibilities, and financial strain while explaining available accommodations and protections.
An evidence-based understanding of generational psychological differences enables courts to craft communications that resonate with younger cohorts’ actual concerns rather than assumptions about what should motivate civic participation.
Juries are supposed to represent a cross-section of the community. When younger adults participate at lower rates, whether due to psychological barriers or other factors, jury pools skew older and potentially less representative of community demographics. This has legitimacy implications:
- Democratic Representation: If systematic psychological barriers deter younger citizens from serving, verdicts may reflect the values and perspectives of older generations disproportionately. This undermines the jury’s democratic function as the community’s voice in legal proceedings.
- Institutional Trust: Younger adults already exhibit lower trust in judicial institutions. If their psychological barriers to service go unaddressed, reinforcing their distance from courts, this generational trust gap may widen further, compounding legitimacy concerns.
- Experiential Understanding: When large cohorts lack direct experience with jury service because psychological barriers prevent participation, their understanding of how courts function remains abstract and potentially distorted. Direct participation, even when initially anxiety-producing, can increase institutional understanding and trust.
Most research on jury service attitudes emerged when generational differences in civic engagement were less pronounced. Contemporary younger cohorts differ from their predecessors in ways that may require theoretical extension:
- Changed Civic Socialization: Younger adults came of age during periods of intense institutional critique and declining civic participation across multiple domains (voting, organizational membership, community involvement). Their psychological orientation toward jury service may reflect broader generational shifts in how civic duty is understood and experienced.
- Digital Natives vs. Analog Generations: Younger cohorts’ constant digital connectivity, different information processing patterns, and evolved communication preferences may shape how they anticipate and experience face-to-face deliberation in unfamiliar institutional settings.
- Economic Precarity: Millennials and Gen Z face different economic realities than Baby Boomers and Gen X at comparable life stages (student debt, housing costs, job insecurity). Perceived burden may be objectively greater for younger cohorts whose financial margins are tighter.
Understanding whether and how generational membership shapes psychological orientation toward jury service contributes to broader theoretical questions about civic psychology in an era of institutional change and generational transition.