Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney closing arguments.

Abstract

In the legal system, jurors are asked to render a decision after the event in question has already occurred and the final outcome, typically negative, is known. This "after-the-fact" structure of the legal system makes jurors susceptible to a human judgment phenomenon known as hindsight bias. This study focused on reducing hindsight bias in a courtroom context by incorporating a debiasing strategy within the defense's closing argument. Subjects viewed one of three videotaped versions of plaintiff and defense closing arguments in a commercial litigation case (i.e., foresight condition, hindsight condition, and hindsight debiasing condition). Results indicate that the hindsight debiasing strategy was effective in reducing subject-juror hindsight bias.

The effects of mental contamination on the hindsight bias: Source confusion determines success in disregarding knowledge

“…The warning instructions used in the current experiment helped subjects segregate old and new information as they were reading the essay, thus reducing source confusion. One study, conducted by Stallard and Worthington (1998), did demonstrate successful debiasing of the hindsight bias in hypothetical jurors. Participants in a ''hindsight debiasing'' condition were warned by the defense attorney about the plaintiff's attorney's strategy to induce the jurors to engage in ''Monday morning quarterbacking.''…”

The Influence of Liability Information, Severity of Injury, and Attitudes toward Vengeance on Damage Awards

“…Other researchers have demonstrated the influence of hindsight perspective in participants' evaluations of a defendant's conduct (Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, 1999b), but effects on jurors' perceptions of the wealth of the defendant have not been specifically assessed although other studies have demonstrated hindsight effects in civil proceedings (e.g., Casper, et al, 1989;Wexler & Schopp, 1989;Kamin & Rachlinski, 1995). Effects of jurors' hindsight perspective appear robust; therefore, potential methods for reducing hindsight bias such as bifurcation of the trial (see Horowitz & Bordens, 1990;Greene & Smith, 2002), judicial instructions (see Kamin & Rachlinski, 1995;Anderson & MacCoun, 1999;Wissler, et al, 2001;Greene, Johns, & Smith, 2001), or requests in the closing arguments of defense attorneys (see Stallard & Worthington, 1998) must continue to be evaluated.…”

“…In cases in which plaintiffs request punitive damages, jurors have a hindsight perspective; they have already heard details of the plaintiff's injuries before they evaluate the defendant's conduct. In her meta-analysis, Robbennolt (2000) found that outcome information affects various measures of legal responsibility including perceptions of the defendant's conduct in liability decisions (see e.g., Casper, Benedict, & Perry, 1989;Bornstein, 1998;Stallard & Worthington, 1998;Greene, et al, 1999) and may influence jurors' perceptions of the defendant's conduct as related to punitive damage awards as well.…”

Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of retrospective judgments

“…In many of these experiments, people make judgments about uncertain outcomes rather than answer questions about general knowledge. For example, the hindsight bias has been demonstrated in evaluations of sexual assault victims (Carli, 1999;Janoff-Bulman, Timko, & Carli, 1985), football games (Roese & Maniar, 1997), jury decision-making (e.g., Casper, Benedict, & Kelly, 1988;Hastie, Schkade, & Payne, 1999;Robbennolt & Sobus, 1997;Stallard & Worthington, 1998), "gustatory judgments" (Pohl, Schwarz, Sczesny, & Stahlberg, 2003), gambling behavior (Baboushkin, Hardoon, Derevensky, & Gupta, 2001), competitive team decision making (Louie, Curren, & Harich, 2000), determinations of therapist negligence (LaBine & LaBine, 1996), economic expectations (Hölzl, Kirchler, & Rodler, 2002), predictions of the likelihood of violent behavior (Cannon & Quinsey, 1995), and medical diagnoses (Arkes, Wortmann, Saville, & Harkness, 1981).…”