31 Pages Posted: 23 Nov 2011
Date Written: December 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: Suggested Citation
Diamond, Shari Seidman and Rose, Mary R. and Murphy, Beth and Meixner, John B., Damage Anchors on Real Juries (December 2011). Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 148-178, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1963632 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01232.x
This is a Wiley-Blackwell Publishing paper. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing charges $38.00 .
File name: j-1461.
If you wish to purchase the right to make copies of this paper for distribution to others, please select the quantity.