Greene 9617270 The law assumes that jurors will determine liability for negligence reprehensibility of the defendant's actions and that they will determine damages by considering the severity of the plaintiff's injuries. This research examines whether jurors' decisions about liability and damages are interdependent or fused ant the conditions under which fusion may occur. The research draws on theorizing about hindsight bias in heuristical reasoning. In judging liability, jurors are assumed to evaluate the reasonableness of the defendant's behavior in light of the risk that was (or should have been) apparent at the time, and not by hindsight in light of consequences. In determining compensation, jurors are assumed to decide upon a fair amount in damages in light of the severity of plaintiff's injuries and not by hindsight in light of defendant's actions. Hindsight bias suggests that outcome information is integrated into a person's knowledge of evens preceding the outcome. Three cognitive mechanisms are proposed to describe this integration and are tested in this research. The first two studies address these issues using jury simulation methodology. The reprehensibility of the defendant's actions and severity of harm are manipulated. All jurors watch a videotaped trial of a negligence case and make individual determination of liability or of damages. They then deliberate in groups of six to reach a verdict and complete a post-deliberation questionnaire. In the third study, .the effectiveness of three classes of debiasing techniques: admonishing jurors to base their judgments on the evidence, requiring jurors to give a rationale prior to stating their liability determinations or damage awards, or bifurcation the liability and damages evidence and decision making are tested. These studies will contribute to knowledge of juror decision making and effective trial processes. %%% The law assumes that jurors will determine liability for negligence reprehensibility of the defendant's act ions and that they will determine damages by considering the severity of the plaintiff's injuries. This research examines whether jurors' decisions about liability and damages are interdependent or fused ant the conditions under which fusion may occur. In judging liability, jurors are assumed to evaluate the reasonableness of the defendant's behavior in light of the risk that was (or qhould have been) apparent at the time, and not by hindsight in light of consequences. In determining compensation, jurors are assumed to decide upon a fair amount in damages in light of the severity of plaintiff's injuries and not by hindsight in light of defendant's actions. Hindsight bias suggests that outcome information is integrated into a person's knowledge of evens preceding the outcome. The studies address these issues using jury simulation methodology. In the first two experiments, the reprehensibility of the defendant's actions and severity of harm are manipulated. All jurors watch a videotaped trial of a negligence case and make individual determination of liability or of damages. They then deliberate in groups of six to reach a verdict and complete a post-deliberation questionnaire. In the third study, .the effectiveness of three classes of debiasing techniques: admonishing jurors to base their judgments on the evidence, requiring jurors to give a rationale prior to stating their liability determinations or damage awards, or bifurcation the liability and damages evidence and decision making are tested. These studies will contribute to knowledge of juror decision making and effective trial processes. ***
