Damage Anchors on Real Juries

48 Pages Posted: 12 Jul 2011 Last revised: 3 Oct 2011

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: Sept 20, 2011


Experiments reveal anchoring as a powerful force, even when participants see the anchor as irrelevant. Here, we examine the reactions of real deliberating jurors to attorney damage requests and concessions in 31 cases involving 33 plaintiffs in which the jury awarded damages. Jurors were critical consumers of attorney suggestions. They reacted more negatively to, and were less influenced by, plaintiff ad damnums for pain and suffering than to damage requests in categories grounded in more objective evidence. Deliberations revealed that jurors often perceive plaintiff ad damnums not only as irrelevant, but also as outrageous, impressions reflected in their verdicts. These findings suggest that extreme plaintiff ad damnums, including those without grounding in quantitative evidence from trial, may not exert substantial undue influence.

Suggested Citation

Seidman Diamond, Shari and Murphy, Beth and Rose, Mary R. and Meixner, John B., Damage Anchors on Real Juries (Sept 20, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1883861 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1883861

Shari Seidman Diamond (Contact Author)

Northwestern University, School of Law & American Bar Foundation ( email )

375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
312-503-2040 (Phone)

Beth Murphy

American Bar Foundation ( email )

750 N. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Mary R. Rose

University of Texas at Austin - Department of Sociology ( email )

2317 Speedway
Austin, TX 78712
United States
512-232-6336 (Phone)

John B. Meixner

Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law ( email )

375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Northwestern University - Department of Psychology

Evanston, IL
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics