IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v9y2012i4p765-794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Blinded Experts on Juror Verdicts

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher T. Robertson
  • David V. Yokum

Abstract

“Blind expertise” has been proposed as an institutional solution to the problem of bias in expert witness testimony in litigation (Robertson ). At the request of a litigant, an intermediary selects a qualified expert and pays the expert to review a case without knowing which side requested the opinion. This article reports an experiment that tests the hypothesis that, compared to traditional experts, such “blinded experts” will be more persuasive to jurors. A national sample of mock jurors (N = 275) watched an online video of a staged medical malpractice trial, including testimony from two medical experts, one of whom (or neither, in the control condition) was randomly assigned to be a blind expert. We also manipulated whether the judge provided a special jury instruction explaining the blinding concept. Descriptively, the data suggest juror reluctance to impose liability. Despite an experimental design that included negligent medical care, only 46 percent of the jurors found negligence in the control condition, which represents the status quo. Blind experts, testifying on either side, were perceived as significantly more credible, and were more highly persuasive, in that they doubled (or halved) the odds of a favorable verdict, and increased (or decreased) simulated damages awards by over $100,000. The increased damages award appears to be due to jurors hedging their damages awards, which interacted with the blind expert as a driver of certainty. Use of a blind expert may be a rational strategy for litigants, even without judicial intervention in the form of special jury instructions or otherwise.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher T. Robertson & David V. Yokum, 2012. "The Effect of Blinded Experts on Juror Verdicts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 765-794, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:9:y:2012:i:4:p:765-794
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01273.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01273.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01273.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Studdert & Michelle M. Mello, 2007. "When Tort Resolutions Are "Wrong": Predictors of Discordant Outcomes in Medical Malpractice Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(S2), pages 47-78, June.
    2. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Schkade, David & Sunstein, Cass R, 1998. "Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 49-86, April.
    5. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    2. Yun‐chien Chang & Theodore Eisenberg & Han‐Wei Ho & Martin T. Wells, 2015. "Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: An Empirical Study," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 128-160, March.
    3. Jihong Lee & Qingmin Liu, 2008. "The Dynamics of Bargaining Postures: The Role of a Third Party," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    4. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    5. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    6. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    7. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    9. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    11. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    14. Eliaz, Kfir & Ray, Debraj & Razin, Ronny, 2007. "Group decision-making in the shadow of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 236-273, January.
    15. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    18. Benjamin J. McMichael & W. Kip Viscusi, 2017. "The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 82-97, July.
    19. Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    20. Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:9:y:2012:i:4:p:765-794. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.