The Stakes Matter: Empirical Evidence of Hypothetical Bias in Case Evaluation and the Curative Power of Economic Incentives

By Cahoy, Daniel R.; Ding, Min | St. John's Law Review, Fall 2006 | Go to article overview

The Stakes Matter: Empirical Evidence of Hypothetical Bias in Case Evaluation and the Curative Power of Economic Incentives


Cahoy, Daniel R., Ding, Min, St. John's Law Review


INTRODUCTION

Jury research plays a critical role in the modern legal environment. In the private dispute context, trial consulting companies commonly run mock trial simulations in order to determine the effect of facts or issues particular to a client's case.1 Additionally, a growing number of courts employ a technique known as a summary jury trial that makes use of a surrogate jury to provide information on the relative strength of each party's case in order to motivate settlement.2 In the academic context, experimental studies on jury behavior are undertaken to uncover the biases, preconceptions and emotional triggers that influence the behavior of juries.3 Such studies are critically important to the judicial system for determining the best ways to mitigate (or at least anticipate) the effects of racism, sexism, and economic bias.4

However, the use of simulated or "mock" juries has serious limitations and disadvantages. Most significantly, researchers in the field acknowledge the possibility that the hypothetical nature of jury simulation studies leads to subject behavior that differs from that of real jurors.5 This so-called "consequentiality" or "hypothetical bias" manifests as a barrier to eliciting reliable responses from participants in a laboratory setting.6 It occurs because the real-world decision-making incentives that flow from the impact of the decision are lacking. Simply put, a participant may make choices other than what he or she would if the study conditions were real; the stakes can matter, and the failure to account for them can be very problematic. Interestingly, the potential for skewed results in jury studies is concern enough that even the U.S. Supreme Court has commented on the problem.7 While the actual impact of hypothetical bias on the reliability of mock jury studies is open to question,8 it is clear that research into the issue is necessary and relevant.

The phenomenon of hypothetical bias is well characterized in the experimental literature of many social science fields.9 Not surprisingly, various methods of reducing its effects have been developed.10 Generally, the standard model involves the use of a reward or compensation that is directly linked to a participant's response.11 Unfortunately, existing economic models for such amelioration are not useful in the context of jury studies due to their unique incentive structure. Specifically, juries12 are not motivated by the potential for personal gain, but instead are called upon to make just decisions for others. A novel approach to capture this incentive is necessary.

This paper proposes a remedy for the problem of hypothetical bias in jury studies that is translatable to existing modalities. We begin in Part I by providing background from the relevant literature, exposing hypothetical bias in other, limited contexts. In Part II, the paper describes a mechanism specifically designed to align incentives in jury studies, articulating its economic basis and components. Finally, in Part III, the paper presents the results of two experiments that demonstrate the utility of the incentive structure and provides a roadmap for future work in this area.

I. DESCRIPTIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL BIAS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATURE AS A PARTIAL ROADMAP FOR A REMEDY

Whenever an individual is called upon to essentially predict what he or she would do in a given circumstance, there is a potential for hypothetical bias. In the context of jury simulation research, the phenomenon is certainly acknowledged, but infrequently studied.13 According to a recent survey of the literature, only five studies have directly addressed the issue, and the results are now at least twenty years old.14 Unfortunately, this limited body of research is ultimately inconclusive.15 Four of the five studies found a direct or interacting effect of role-playing and consequences on jury behavior,16 one found no effect,17 and all suffer from some methodological shortcomings that limit the objective reliability of the results. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Stakes Matter: Empirical Evidence of Hypothetical Bias in Case Evaluation and the Curative Power of Economic Incentives
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.