Table 1.

Overview of studies and main findings

Study	n	Main finding	Comparison of interest	Statistical test
1	1,960	Jury trials disproportionately end with just enough votes for a conviction.	No. of trials ending with just enough votes to convict vs. one too few	χ2 = 91.18, df = 1, P < 0.001
2a	261	The opportunity to “tip” a group vote into punishment causes participants to vote to punish others more.	Likelihood of voting to punish by pivotal vs. nonpivotal voters	χ2 = 9.20, df = 1, P = 0.002
2b	298	The opportunity to “tip” a group vote into acquittal does not cause participants to vote to acquit others more.	Likelihood of voting to acquit by pivotal vs. nonpivotal voters	χ2 = 0.03, df = 1, P = 0.870
3	1,633	(1) The opportunity to “tip” a group vote into punishment causes participants to vote to punish others more across various group votes and voting thresholds; (2) These participants believe targets deserve to be punished more.	(1) Likelihood of voting to punish by pivotal vs. nonpivotal voters; (2) Deservingness judgment by pivotal vs. nonpivotal voters	(1) βpivotal = 0.46, SE = 0.12, P < 0.001 (2) βpivotal = 0.49, SE = 0.20, P = 0.016
4	505	The opportunity to “tip” a group vote into punishment causes voters to be judged as more responsible for outcomes if they vote against the group.	Responsibility attributions about pivotal voters who “tip” vs. do not “tip”	βhung jury = 0.29, SE = 0.12, P = 0.021