Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial

Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than nonnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.This research was supported by National Science Foundation under grant No. SBR 9311922 awarded to Irwin A. Horowitz.     

Separating Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Decisions by Trial Bifurcation

In a simulated products liability trial, we tested the effects of bifurcating decisions regarding compensatory and punitive damage awards. Fifty-nine groups of 5-7 jurors heard evidence in a unitary or bifurcated format, deliberated about the case to a unanimous decision, and awarded damages. Trial bifurcation decreased variability in compensatory damage awards across juries hearing the same case, and also decreased the tendency for juries to award extremely high compensatory damages. In addition, deliberation led to lower compensatory awards in the low injury severity condition and higher awards in the high injury severity condition. Jurors reported that they were using evidence more appropriately when the decisions were bifurcated. Implications of evidence bifurcation in civil trials are discussed.     

The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials

The effectiveness of a persuasion technique referred to asstealing thunder was assessed in two simulated jury trials. Stealing thunder is defined as revealing negative information about oneself (or, in a legal setting, one's client) before it is revealed or elicited by another person. In Study 1, 257 college students read or heard one of three versions of a criminal assault trial in which a damaging piece of evidence about the defendant was absent (no thunder), brought up by the prosecutor (thunder), or brought up by the defense attorney and repeated by the prosecutor (stolen thunder). In Study 2, 148 college students heard a civil negligence trial in which damaging evidence about the key plaintiff's witness was absent (no thunder), brought up by the defendant's attorney (thunder), or brought up by the witness himself (stolen thunder). In both studies, stealing thunder significantly reduced the impact of the negative information. A path analysis of the processes underlying the effect suggested that verdicts were affected because of enhanced credibility.Often a difficult decision in opening statements is whether, and if so how, to volunteer weaknesses. This involves determining your weaknesses and predicting whether your opponent intends to use them at trial. There is obviously no point in volunteering a weakness that would never be raised at trial. Where, however, that weakness is apparent and known to the opponent, you should volunteer it. If you don't, your opponent will, with twice the impact. (Mauet, 1992, pp. 47–48)We would like to thank Michelle Cox, Gim Koay, Dana Koay, and Ralph Mueller for their helpful input. Thanks also to Irv Horowitz and Steve Karau for their comments on earlier drafts.     

L'élaboration et la mise en œuvre des recommandations issues d'évaluations de programmes au gouvernement du Canada

In Canada's government, program evaluation reports include recommendations aimed at improving their procedures and implementation. The development of recommendations can be a tedious step in the evaluation process and involve several stakeholders. Nevertheless, little research has been done in order to define how these recommendations are developed and if they are implemented afterwards by program managers. This article introduces the findings from a survey taken by federal evaluation directors, in order to better grasp the issues related to the development and implementation of recommendations. The findings demonstrate a high level of support from stakeholders towards the evaluation process and development of recommendations, which supports an increased use of evaluations. This study's findings corroborate those of previous studies and show that recommendations are mainly focused on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of programs, rather than on the more strategic decision making.