Smeal College Professors Develop New Approach To Accurately Predict Jury Behavior

UNIVERSITY PARK, PA (May 25, 2004)—Current methods of jury research used by consultants and others in the legal community are not always successful at predicting how a jury will actually behave in a trial situation, but two professors at Penn State’s Smeal College of Business have developed a new approach based on the field of experimental economics that can help lift the fog surrounding jury decision making.

The work of Daniel R. Cahoy, assistant professor of business law, and Min Ding, assistant professor of marketing, has far-reaching implications:

• Accurate jury research can factually address to what extent juries are actually subject to the negative biases and prejudices they’ve been suspected of for many years.
  
  
• Attorneys who truly understand the impact of various biases can appropriately adapt their case presentations or even confront jurors with their prejudices.
  
  
• Jury research can be used to suggest appropriate reforms to the American jury system.
  
  

“The number of jury trials has fallen in the past decade even with the number of litigations on the rise,” Cahoy said. “Certainly, there could be various reasons for the decline, but concerns about the uncertainty of what happens when a case goes before a jury is likely a significant factor. Business people are uncomfortable with leaving important and oftentimes complex issues in the hands of strangers with unknown tendencies.”

The most common form of jury research, which uses study participants as jurors in hypothetical scenarios, may lack accuracy because participants react differently when they know their decisions will not impact either of the two parties engaged in a fictional dispute. Cahoy and Ding have created a method that uses incentives that parallel those experienced by a real jury, so that study participants will realistically care about the outcomes of hypothetical cases. Their system relies on recreating the social utility (doing the right thing for the society) that a real juror experiences.

In one version of the method, jury performance is linked to the amount of money split between third parties, a desirable one (well-known charity) and an undesirable one (total stranger who does not deserve money). Participants understand that the closer they come to the “correct” legal decision, the more money is given to the charity. The share of money given to charity decreases and the stranger receives more compensation as the decision by the mock jury deviates from the target. In other words, the hypothetical study becomes, in effect, real, with consequences analogous to those encountered by an actual jury.

A preliminary study conducted by Cahoy and Ding has shown that under the new incentive mechanism participants behaved differently and produced more legally sound decisions.

“Using our method, jury researchers can repeatedly adapt and adjust an infinite number of arguments,” Ding said, “confident in the knowledge that the information they’re receiving from the mock jury mirrors how a real jury would act. Biases and prejudices can be more accurately understood and addressed.”

Due to the unique nature of the research method developed by Cahoy and Ding, Penn State University’s Intellectual Property Office is currently seeking patent protection on the concept.

About the Researchers
Daniel R. Cahoy’s research interests include investigating the theoretical and practical application of intellectual property rights in the areas of e-commerce, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Cahoy is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and has been admitted to the New York State Bar and several federal courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He formerly practiced at the law firm of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, where he specialized in complex patent litigation.

Min Ding’s research interests are focused on marketing practices in life-science related industries and on the interaction of psychology and economics. His recent work has dealt with new drug development and portfolio management strategies, prelaunch forecasting models, hypothetical bias studies, and reverse auctions. He holds a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology from Ohio State.