The recent verdict in the NFL ‘Sunday Ticket’ antitrust case, where the jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages, underscores the critical need to understand modern jury psychology. This week’s post explores how psychological reactance, evolving attitudes towards authority, and the perceived credibility of expert witnesses can all significantly impact a jury’s decisions.
Reactance and Jury Behavior
Reactance theory suggests that when people perceive a limitation on a freedom, they experience an unpleasant emotional response and are motivated to exercise that freedom when they otherwise may not have taken action (Brehm, 1966). In the courtroom, studies show that when jurors feel manipulated or coerced by attorneys or judges, they tend to resist the given instructions to a significantly higher degree than if the exact same set of instructions had been relayed in a more informative (i.e., less prohibitive) manner (Shaw & Skolnick, 1995; Steblay et al., 2006).
This undoubtedly played a role in the recent NFL case, with the judge later commenting that the jury did not follow the instructions regarding how they were to calculate the damages. Instead, the jury ignored the expert witnesses’ suggested numbers and calculated an amount based on their own logic and reasoning; They calculated how much each person in the case was “overcharged” and used that number to add up the total amount of damages incurred. Their choice to ignore the judge’s instructions and the expert witnesses’ suggestions is a prime example of psychological reactance in the face of overly prohibitive instructions. Now, reactance alone would have made a significant difference in the jury’s behavior, however, given the recent downward trajectory of the public’s trust in institutional authority, the jury’s behavior in this case would have been especially difficult to navigate.
Diminishing Trust in Authority
Research indicates a growing skepticism towards experts and authority figures in modern society. This is thought to be influenced by increased access to information and a general decline in trust in institutional authority and traditional authority figures, including politicians, business leaders, and experts. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that trust in institutions is at an all-time low, with many believing that leaders intentionally mislead the public. This skepticism naturally extends to the courtroom, where jurors are increasingly less inclined to accept the authority of judges and expert witnesses without questioning whether they are better off looking elsewhere or doing their own research.
The Need for Credible Authority Figures
To counteract these tendencies, it is essential to present authority figures who are perceived as unbiased and relatable to the jury pool. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), highlights the importance of source credibility in persuasion. Jurors are more likely to accept authority figures who demonstrate their expertise in a way that resonates with the jury’s values and beliefs. Properly matching your messaging and expert witnesses to the existing mindset of the jury will have a profound effect on their willingness to accept the information you are presenting.
Practical Implications
- Selection of Expert Witnesses: Carefully select expert witnesses who are not only knowledgeable but also able to connect with jurors on a personal level. Ensure they can communicate complex information clearly and in a manner that is personally relatable to your jury pool.
- Pre-Trial Jury Education and Selection: Educate jurors about the legal process and the importance of following the court’s instructions. This can be achieved through voir dire, where you and your team can identify and potentially exclude jurors who might exhibit strong reactance tendencies.
- Establishing Credibility: Build the credibility of all presenters (including the legal team and witnesses) by emphasizing transparency, honesty, and relatability. Avoid using overly technical jargon and ensure your arguments are backed by clear, accessible evidence that is presented in a way that resonates with the jury pool.
- Managing Perceptions of Coercion: Frame arguments and questions in a way that empowers jurors rather than making them feel coerced. Strive to present the case and all instructions in a manner that respects jurors’ intelligence and decision-making abilities. Studies show that juries respond much more favorably when the instructions are relayed in an informative manner rather than a proscriptive manner (Shaw & Skolnick, 1995).
Understanding the psychology of juries, including reactance and evolving attitudes towards authority, is crucial in legal settings. By addressing these psychological factors, legal professionals and their teams can better navigate jury behavior and enhance the fairness and accuracy of verdicts.
References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (2005). Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Social cognition: Key readings (pp. 512–532). Psychology Press.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in hydroscience. 19. 124-205.
Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (1995). Effects of prohibitive and informative judicial instructions on jury decision making. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 23(4), 319–325.
Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law and human behavior, 30(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7
