We have long noted in our focus group research that jurors’ awards often skyrocket once they learn the plaintiff’s demand, and it’s not unusual for a juror to award $100,000 in damages prior to hearing the demand and then $5 million afterward.  From our perspective, the old plaintiff lawyers’ adage that “the more you ask for, the more you get” is absolutely true.

Legal scholars call this the “anchoring effect” because it effectively anchors the award to the plaintiff’s demand, and a recent study by researchers at the University of Denver and University of Arizona law schools found the effect to be dramatic.

In the study, mock jurors were presented with identical cases – except one group was presented with a non-economic damages demand of $250,000 and the other was provided a demand of $5 million.  Alarmingly, jurors presented with the higher demand awarded amounts that were 430 to 823 percent higher than those presented with the lower demand – that’s four to eight times higher – even though the facts and presentation of the case were identical.

The bad news is that none of the defense strategies tested – ignoring the demand, countering it with a much lower number or attacking it – erased this anchoring effect.  However, it’s not all doom and gloom, as the study revealed some glimmers of hope for defense lawyers.

First, proffering outrageous demands appeared to hurt the plaintiff’s credibility and chances of winning the case, as jurors who heard the high demand found for the plaintiff about 20 percent less of the time compared to those who heard the more moderate demand.

In terms of what you can control – how you respond to a plaintiff’s excessive demand – countering the demand with a more reasonable amount was significantly more effective than either ignoring or attacking it – and attacking it was easily the worst option.  

Defense attorneys are sometimes concerned that offering an alternative number might seem like an admission of liability, but the study found countering the demand actually led to more wins for the defense.  By contrast, ignoring the plaintiff’s demand reduced the defendant’s success by 6.6 percentage points and attacking it reduced the win rate by 14.7 percentage points.

Moreover, countering the plaintiff’s demand with a more reasonable suggestion of $50,000 reduced the average damages by between 9 percent and 41 percent (depending on the scenario details), confirming our long-held observation that jurors often find a number somewhere between the plaintiff and defense suggestions.  As with liability, attacking the plaintiff’s demand was the worst option, resulting in the highest average award in all scenarios.

Although scholars clearly have more research to do in this area – particularly by looking at real trial outcomes – this study demonstrates that offering a reasonable alternative to the plaintiff’s non-economic demand offers the best chance for success on both liability and damages.  It may be tempting to get on your high horse and attack the plaintiff’s outrageous demand, but the research shows this is not the way to go.

If you’d like to explore how jurors react to a damages claim in your case, we can help with either focus groups or an online study.  Contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out more.