Punishing Goliath: Biased Juror Decision-Making Against Wealthy Defendants and Corporations

193604-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Civil juries are becoming an increasingly rare means of resolving civil disputes. One reason for this is widespread mistrust in jury decision-making do to highly publicized nuclear verdicts where verdicts do not seem to match the alleged harm suffered by…

Civil juries are becoming an increasingly rare means of resolving civil disputes. One reason for this is widespread mistrust in jury decision-making do to highly publicized nuclear verdicts where verdicts do not seem to match the alleged harm suffered by a plaintiff. Critics allege that jurors are biased against defendants with deep pockets. This research aims to test whether there is evidence of so-called deep-pocket bias in juror decision-making. Previous research has compared how the wealth of defendants impacts jurors’ verdicts while other studies have compared how jurors’ verdicts are impacted when the defendant is an individual versus a corporation. The first aim is to explore the impact of defendant wealth and corporate identity on jurors’ liability verdicts and damage awards. The second aim is to explore whether the theory of dyadic morality helps to explain any potential observed deep-pocket biases. The study tested the hypothesis that perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency (in other words, their responsibility and intentionality) would predict jurors’ liability verdicts while perceptions of a defendant’s moral patiency (in other words, their vulnerability and capacity for suffering) would predict jurors’ damage awards. In a study of mock juror decision-making, results concluded that when assessing the same alleged wrongdoing and harm, jurors were more confident in a liable verdict against wealthy defendants and corporate defendants compared to poor defendants and individuals as defendants. Higher perceptions of a defendant’s moral agency did explain these effects. However, there was no evidence that defendant wealth or corporate identity influenced damage awards. Ultimately, in cases where plaintiffs portray themselves as a small and vulnerable “David” taking on a large and resourceful “Goliath,” juror decision-making on liability verdicts is likely to unfairly punish “Goliath” defendants, revealing deep-pocket biases against wealthy defendants and corporations.
Date Created
2024
Agent

The Illusory Implication Effect: How Mere Exposure to Ideas Influences Our Beliefs

193588-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Studies have repeatedly shown that mere exposure to ideas makes those ideas seem more true, a finding referred to as the “illusory truth” effect. This feature of cognition may heighten existing concerns surrounding the spread of misinformation. Recent studies have…

Studies have repeatedly shown that mere exposure to ideas makes those ideas seem more true, a finding referred to as the “illusory truth” effect. This feature of cognition may heighten existing concerns surrounding the spread of misinformation. Recent studies have shown that the effect extends to fake news headlines and may increase the likelihood that someone shares misinformation. But is this evidence that mere exposure can affect our beliefs? The two leading accounts of the illusory truth effect argue that after initial exposure, participants sense a feeling of familiarity or “fluency” at test that they use as a sign the statement is true. Beliefs however, extend further than just truth ratings. Beliefs also guide actions and imply other beliefs. Three pre-registered experiments were conducted to examine whether mere exposure to statements induces genuine beliefs by first examining if participants draw implications from mere exposure in Study 1. Surprisingly, results indicated that exposure to “premise” statements affect participants’ truth ratings for novel “implied” statements, which cannot be explained by the familiarity or fluency accounts of the illusory truth effect. Study 2 replicated results from Study 1 and ruled out consistency pressure as an explanation for prior findings. Finally, Study 3 replicated results from Studies 1 and 2 and ensured they were not due to demand characteristics by conducting separate analysis for suspicious and non-suspicious participants. Since these findings cannot be explained by the predominant accounts of the illusory truth effect, the authors believe this is evidence of a new effect the “illusory implication” effect. More importantly, these findings suggest that the consequences of misinformation may be larger than previously thought and warrants further study into potential mechanisms driving the illusory implication effect.
Date Created
2024
Agent

The Influence of Error on Perceptions of Machine Learning vs. Clinician-Based Risk Assessments

189380-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Risk assessments are key legal tools that can inform a number of legal decisions regarding parole sentencing and predict recidivism rates. Due to assessments being historically performed by humans, they can be prone to bias and have come under various…

Risk assessments are key legal tools that can inform a number of legal decisions regarding parole sentencing and predict recidivism rates. Due to assessments being historically performed by humans, they can be prone to bias and have come under various amounts of scrutiny. The increased capability and application of machine learning technology has lead the justice system to incorporate algorithms and codes to increase accuracy and reliability. This study researched laypersons’ attitudes towards these algorithms and how they would change when exposed to an algorithm that made errors in the risk assessment process. Participants were tasked with reading two vignettes and answering a series of questions to assess the differences in their perceptions towards machine learning and clinician-based risk assessments. The research findings showed that individuals lent more trust to clinicians and had more confidence in their assessments when compared to machines, but were not significantly more punitive when it came to attributing blame and judgement for the consequences of an incorrect risk assessment. Participants had a significantly more positive attitude towards clinician-based risk assessments, noting their assessments as being more reliable, informed, and trustworthy. Participants were also asked to come to a parole decision using the assessment of either a clinician or machine learning algorithm at the end of the study and rate their own confidence in their decision. Results found that participants were only significantly less confident in their decision when exposed to previous instances of risk assessments with error, but that there was no significant difference in their confidence based solely on who conducted the assessment.
Date Created
2023
Agent

Examining the Relationship Between Regional Implicit Racial Biases & Racial Disparities in the Outcomes of Civil Trials

Description

Even though criminal justice outcomes frequently receive more media, public, and research attention than civil legal outcomes, civil legal outcomes are equally important in ensuring fairness, accountability, and justice for both individuals and society as a whole. This provides individuals…

Even though criminal justice outcomes frequently receive more media, public, and research attention than civil legal outcomes, civil legal outcomes are equally important in ensuring fairness, accountability, and justice for both individuals and society as a whole. This provides individuals an avenue to pursue justice and restitution for civil wrongs, protects civil rights, and compensates those who have been harmed financially. This study examined the relationship between regional implicit racial bias and racial disparities in outcomes of real-world civil trials. In particular, I explored whether the racial composition of the attorneys on the defense teams or race of the plaintiff predicted plaintiff verdicts and greater damage awards. I hypothesized that all-White defense attorney teams and plaintiffs would win their cases at higher rates and would subsequently be awarded more in damages than their non-White counterparts, especially in regions reporting high levels of implicit racial bias. Using real-world civil trials and Project Implicit Race IAT data, I conducted logistic and linear regression analyses to test the effects of race and regional bias on trial outcomes. The results showed that the likelihood of a pro-plaintiff verdict increased when the defense team included at least one non-White attorney. That is, more racially diverse defense teams won their cases less then all-White defense teams. Additionally, I found that the likelihood of a pro-plaintiff verdict decreased in regions reporting relatively higher levels of regional implicit racial bias. Future research aimed at understanding and reducing disparities and bias in the legal system should be extended to include civil trials and both attorney and client demographics.

Date Created
2023-05
Agent

Do Evaluators of Eyewitness Evidence Believe Highly Confident Eyewitnesses are Poorly Calibrated When They Experienced Suboptimal Witnessing Conditions?

171389-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
It has recently been argued that high-confidence eyewitness identifications are highly likely to be accurate regardless of the quality of viewing conditions experienced by the witness. However, new evidence suggests that evaluators of eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., jurors) do not…

It has recently been argued that high-confidence eyewitness identifications are highly likely to be accurate regardless of the quality of viewing conditions experienced by the witness. However, new evidence suggests that evaluators of eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., jurors) do not trust highly confident eyewitnesses who experienced poor witnessing conditions. In fact, contextual information about poor witnessing conditions decreases evaluators’ belief of eyewitnesses to a greater extent for highly confident witnesses than for moderately confident witnesses. Why is the effect of witnessing-condition information greater for evaluations of high-confidence witnesses than for less confident witnesses? The current research tested the possibility that information about witnessing conditions influences evaluators’ perceptions of how well-calibrated a witness’s identification confidence is with the eyewitness’s accuracy. Using a paradigm adapted from the confidence calibration literature, I conducted an experiment to test this calibration account of the finding that witnessing condition information has a stronger effect on perceptions of highly confident witnesses than moderately confident witnesses. Although the results replicated the differential effects of witnessing condition context on perceptions of highly and moderately confident eyewitnesses, they failed to yield support for the confidence calibration hypothesis, potentially because the confidence calibration manipulation was ineffective. Directions for future research are discussed.
Date Created
2022
Agent

Evaluators' Perceptions of Suspect-Bias Variables

168751-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Evaluators of eyewitness evidence (e.g., judges, jurors) often must determine whether an eyewitness’s identification of a police suspect is accurate or mistaken. It has recently been argued that a particular class of variables—suspect-bias variables—pose a unique threat to the reliability…

Evaluators of eyewitness evidence (e.g., judges, jurors) often must determine whether an eyewitness’s identification of a police suspect is accurate or mistaken. It has recently been argued that a particular class of variables—suspect-bias variables—pose a unique threat to the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. Unlike “general impairment” variables that generally impair eyewitness identification accuracy (e.g., poor viewing conditions, biased lineup instructions), suspect-bias variables produce a suspect-specific bias that increases the risk of confident misidentifications of innocent suspects. The goal of this research was to examine evaluators’ sensitivity to suspect-bias variables compared to general impairment variables, and to test whether sensitivity to suspect-bias differs as a function of whether the suspect-bias variable is under the control of the legal system (system suspect-bias) or outside of the legal system’s control (estimator suspect-bias). Participant-evaluators (N = 214) read eight crime vignettes paired with one of four different eyewitness variables (system suspect-bias, estimator suspect-bias, general impairment, or no-variable control) and rated the accuracy of each eyewitness. Evaluators also explained the reasoning for their accuracy rating, and their explanations were coded for mentions of procedural suggestion, eyewitness memory strength, memory contamination, and general eyewitness (un)reliability. Evaluators appear to be more sensitive to general impairment variables than to suspect-bias variables. This finding is alarming, as suspect-bias variables pose a greater threat to eyewitness reliability than general-impairment variables. Implications for the collection and evaluation of eyewitness evidence are discussed.
Date Created
2022
Agent

Eyewitness Identification Procedures and Suggestions for Their Reform

164963-Thumbnail Image.png
Date Created
2022-05
Agent

Eyewitness Identification Procedures and Suggestions for its Reform

Description

Eyewitness identification has been one of the most crucial components in identifying perpetrators in criminal cases. Misidentification of a suspect often has detrimental effects, with many innocent individuals being wrongfully convicted. In order to fully understand the causes of misidentification,…

Eyewitness identification has been one of the most crucial components in identifying perpetrators in criminal cases. Misidentification of a suspect often has detrimental effects, with many innocent individuals being wrongfully convicted. In order to fully understand the causes of misidentification, a proper understanding of the process of eyewitness identification must be understood in order to ensure that fewer individuals are falsely imprisoned.

Date Created
2022-05
Agent

Exacerbating Suspect Bias: A Literature Review Examining Specific-Suspect Bias in the Presence of General Impairment in Eyewitness Identification

164944-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the available literature on suspect bias in the context of general impairment to evaluate support for the claim that general impairment exacerbates the effect of suspect bias to increase the risk of…

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the available literature on suspect bias in the context of general impairment to evaluate support for the claim that general impairment exacerbates the effect of suspect bias to increase the risk of eyewitness misidentifications. To provide context for the importance of this issue, the misidentification of Ronald Cotton in the investigation of the assault of Jennifer Thompson-Cannino is discussed. I identified meta-analyses discussing the following suspect bias variables: prior mugshot exposure, exposure to composites, suspect-filler similarity, post-identification feedback, and the use of showups versus lineups to evaluate the literature. Using the articles citing the meta-analyses and cited within the meta-analyses, I found individual studies that manipulated suspect bias, in addition to a general impairment variable. Examples of general impairment variables include age, time delay, lineup presentation, lineup instructions, and options for identification responses. For each suspect-bias variable discussed, the literature provided inconsistent results. Based on the variations found in the data that was evaluated, I recommend that further examination of suspect-bias in the context of general impairment variables be conducted to garner a better, more cohesive understanding of the interaction between these variables.
Date Created
2022-05
Agent
Subscribe to Smalarz, Laura