The power of meaningful numbers
Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21454818 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Krystia Reed (0000-0003-4373-3450, The University of Texas at El Paso), Valerie P Hans (0000-0003-4470-5478, Cornell University), Vivian Rotenstein (0000-0002-9036-5542, Cornell University), Rebecca K Helm (0000-0003-1429-3847, University of Exeter), Addison Rodriguez (0009-0004-2454-2688, Cornell University), Peter McKendall (0009-0005-0422-0689, Cornell University), Valerie F Reyna (0000-0003-2851-5797, Cornell University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 83-103 |
| Publication date | 2024-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law and Human Behavior (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0147-7307 • E-ISSN: 1573-661X |
| Publisher | American Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1037/lhb0000559 |
| PMID | 38602803 |
| OpenAlex | W4394715296 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
OBJECTIVE: A mock jury experiment tested the effects of attorney guidance and jury deliberation to mitigate the challenges that civil juries face in assessing damages. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that two types of attorney guidance (per diem, per diem + lump sum), theoretically based in the Hans-Reyna model of jury decision making, would improve jury decision making compared with no guidance against five key benchmarks: injury assessment, validity, reliability, verbatim-gist coherence, and metacognitive experience. We expected that deliberation would increase reliability of, confidence in, and polarization of awards compared with predeliberation. METHOD: = 48.68 years) deliberated in 54 mock juries. Participants watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident in which two plaintiffs sustained concussions (one mild and one severe). The plaintiffs' attorney's closing arguments varied attorney guidance (no guidance, per diem, per diem + lump sum). Mock jurors provided individual judgments before deliberating as a jury and reaching group verdicts and awards. RESULTS: = 2.14) awards compared with predeliberation. CONCLUSION: Juries performed well against objective benchmarks of performance (injury assessment, validity, reliability, and verbatim-gist coherence), and deliberation improved performance compared with predeliberation decisions. Jury decisions were further influenced by attorney closing arguments (the guidance manipulation), especially when the attorney requests a lump sum, which can serve as a powerful influence on jury awards, mainly by setting an upper limit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
Deliberation · Jury · Plaintiff · Political science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |