Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso.
Cornell Law School, Cornell University.
Law Hum Behav. 2024 Apr;48(2):83-103. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000559.
A mock jury experiment tested the effects of attorney guidance and jury deliberation to mitigate the challenges that civil juries face in assessing damages.
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.
Community members ( = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; M = 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.
Juries performed well against benchmarks. Providing gist-based guidance with a meaningful award recommendation increased the validity of jurors' individual damage awards (η² = .03) and the reliability of jury damage awards (η² = .04; η² = .20); gist-based guidance without an award recommendation did not improve performance against benchmarks and increased perceptions of decision-making difficulty (η² = .13). Deliberation increased reliability of (η² = .17), confidence in (η² = .02), and polarization of ( = 2.14) awards compared with predeliberation.
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).
模拟陪审团实验测试了律师指导和陪审团审议的效果，以减轻民事陪审团在评估损害赔偿方面面临的挑战。
我们假设两种类型的律师指导（日薪、日薪+一次性付款），理论上基于 Hans-Reyna 陪审团决策模型，与没有指导的情况相比，将在五个关键基准上改善陪审团的决策：伤害评估、有效性、可靠性、逐字要点一致性和元认知体验。我们预计，与审议前相比，审议将提高裁决的可靠性、信心和两极分化。
社区成员（=317；61%女性；86.1%白人；M=48.68 岁）在 54 个模拟陪审团中进行审议。参与者观看了一段涉及一起汽车事故的录像审判，两名原告均遭受脑震荡（一名轻度，一名重度）。原告的律师的结案陈词因律师指导而异（无指导、日薪、日薪+一次性付款）。模拟陪审员在作为陪审团进行审议之前和达成团体裁决和赔偿之前提供个人判断。
陪审团在基准测试中表现良好。提供基于要点的指导和有意义的赔偿建议提高了陪审员个人损害赔偿的有效性（η²=0.03）和陪审团损害赔偿的可靠性（η²=0.04；η²=0.20）；没有赔偿建议的基于要点的指导没有提高对基准的表现，反而增加了决策难度的感知（η²=0.13）。与审议前相比，审议提高了裁决的可靠性（η²=0.17）、信心（η²=0.02）和两极分化（=2.14）。
陪审团在绩效的客观基准（伤害评估、有效性、可靠性和逐字要点一致性）方面表现良好，与审议前的决定相比，审议提高了绩效。律师结案陈词（指导操作）进一步影响了陪审团的决定，特别是当律师要求一次性付款时，这可以对陪审团的裁决产生强大的影响，主要是通过设定上限。
