Over the years, empirical research on juries has focused almost exclusively on the criminal jury. Very little is known about decisionmaking by juries in civil litigation. This is unfortunate since the role of the jury in civil litigation is a matter of ongoing debate. Critics claim that civil juries are unpredictable, inequitable, and incapable of coping with complex litigation. Recent legistive proposals for modifying the civil jury system are predicated on untested assumptions about jury behavior. This study will identify and test some important empirical questions about decisionmaking by civil juries in the area of personal injury cases. There is some indication that civil jury verdicts in personal injury cases are less favorable for organizational defendants than for individual defendants. Critics cite this pattern in support of the hypothesis that jurors are influenced by the defendant's financial resources, labelling it a "Deep Pockets" effect. However, there are a number of alternative explanations for this defendant identity effect. This project will conduct three mock jury experiments to attempt to replicate the defendant identity effect and to test competitively several alternative models in order to better understand the norms and values that underly jurors' liability and compensation judgments in tort litigation. The first two experiments will examine individual juror judgments using written trial scenarios, while the third experiment will replicate and extend the results of those studies using deliberating mock juries and a realistic videotaped trial reenactment. This research will yield a rich and diverse collection of data on civil juror and jury decision processes which will add to our knowledge about juror judgment in personal injury cases. Not only will the testing of alternative theoretical models expand scientific knowledge in this area, but a better understanding of the basis for jury verdicts will contribute to a more informed policy debate. In addition, the deliberation content analyses will help to identify ways in which trial procedures can be improved to assist citizens, jurors, and perhaps judges in tackling the complexity and uncertainty of fact-finding in civil litigation. Of broader social psychological relevance, the research will permit examination of relatively unexplored attributional issues and the factors that influence the relative salience of distributive justice norms.
