Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making.
- 1 January 1990
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Law and Human Behavior
- Vol. 14 (4) , 385-395
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01068163
Abstract
How do jurors accomplish the task of awarding damages in a civil lawsuit? to what extent are they influenced by expert testimony? These questions were addressed in a mock juror simulation in which jurors from El Paso County (Colorado) read one of three versions of a trial manuscript involving an age discrimination claim in which liability was already determined. They awarded damages and answered follow-up questions. In one version, there was no expert testimony; in a second version, they received plaintiff expert testimony on lost future wages and other economic matters; and in the third version, they received both plaintiff and defense expert testimony. Monetary awards were significantly higher when expert(s) testified. Moreover, jurors were strongly influenced by the expert testimony: Nearly half of them selected a damage award that exactly matched the amounts suggested. Finally, jurors infrequently considered exponential calculations in assessing damages.Keywords
This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit:
- Attitudes and Attitude ChangeAnnual Review of Psychology, 1987
- The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court: Some empirical findings.Law and Human Behavior, 1980
- Extrapolation of exponential time series is not enhanced by having more data pointsPerception & Psychophysics, 1978