Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:06:01.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Treatment of Corporate Defendants by Juries: An Examination of the “Deep-Pockets” Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Robert J. MacCoun
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Evidence that juries treat corporate defendants less favorably than individual defendants is often cited in support of the widely held view that juries are biased against wealthy “deep-pocket” defendants. Such evidence confounds defendant wealth and defendant identity. In two juror simulation experiments involving citizens on jury duty, these factors were separated by manipulating whether the defendant was described as a poor individual, a wealthy individual, or a corporation; the defendant's assets were described identically in the latter two conditions. In Experiment 1, liability was significantly more likely, and awards were significantly greater, for corporate defendants than for wealthy individual defendants, but verdicts against poor versus wealthy individuals did not differ. In Experiment 2, awards were larger against wealthy individuals who engaged in commercial rather than personal activities, and awards in the personal activity condition were larger against corporations than wealthy individuals. There was little evidence for a defendant wealth effect on juror judgments. While juries do appear to treat corporations differently, the explanation may have more to do with citizens' views about the special risks and responsibilities of commercial activity.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , 1996 , pp. 121 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research was supported by Grant No. SES-8911778 from the Law and Social Science Program of the National Science Foundation and by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. Portions of this research were presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Amsterdam, 28 June 1991, and summarized in an Institute for Civil Justice issue paper (MacCoun 1993a). The author is grateful to the judges and staff of the Ventura County (CA) Superior Court for their generous cooperation; Manuela Olivia Balderrama-Small and Patricia Ebener for their assistance in data collection; Barbara Levitan, Mark Peterson, Peter Jacobsen, Charles Bennett, Ralph Duman, Thomas Lincoln, and Malcolm MacCoun for assistance in preparing the stimulus cases used in Experiment 1; Valerie Hans for providing the stimulus case adapted for Experiment 2; and Deborah Hensler, Jim Kahan, Norbert Kerr, Kevin McCarthy, Neil Vidmar, and several anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.

References

American Enterprise (1993) “How's Business?” American Enterprise, Nov./Dec., pp. 83–88.Google Scholar
Arlen, Jennifer H. (1992) “Should Defendants' Wealth Matter?” 21 J of Legal Studies 413.Google Scholar
Bailis, Daniel S., & MacCoun, Robert J. (in press) “Estimating Liability Risks with the Media as Your Guide: A Content Analysis of Tort Litigation,” Law & Human Behavior.Google Scholar
Black, Donald (1987) “Compensation and the Structure of Misfortune,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 563.Google Scholar
Bovbjerg, Randall R., Sloan, Frank, Dor, A., & Hsieh, C. R. (1991) “Juries and Justice: Are Malpractice and Other Personal Injuries Treated Equal?” 54 Law & Contemporary Problems 5.Google Scholar
Chin, Audrey, & Peterson, Mark A. (1985) Deep Pockets, Empty Pockets: Who Wins in Cook County Jury Trials? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.Google Scholar
Coffee, John C. (1981) “‘No Soul to Damn, No Body to Kick’: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment,” 79 Michigan Law Rev. 386.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob (1987) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. rev. ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986) “Unfair Comparisons,” 71 J of Applied Psychology 179.Google Scholar
Cutler, Brian L., ed. (1990) “Special Issue: The Status of Scientific Jury Selection in Psychology and Law,” 3 Forensic Reports 227.Google Scholar
Dane, Frances. C., & Wrightsman, Lawrence S. (1982) “Effects of Defendants' and Victims' Characteristics on Jurors' Verdicts,” in Kerr, N. L. & Bray, R. M., eds., The Psychology of the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Morton (1975) “Equity, Equality, Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis for Distributive Justice?” 31 J. of Social Issues 137.Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari S. (1990) “Scientific Jury Selection: What Social Scientists Know and Do Not Know,” 73 Judicature 178.Google Scholar
Fiske, Alan Page (1991) Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome (1949) Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Barbara Hackman (1992) “Reform Laws on Product Liability Now,” Los Angeles Times, 9 Sept., p. B7.Google Scholar
Green, Edward (1968) “The Reasonable Man: Legal Fiction or Psychosocial Reality?” 2 Law & Society Rev. 241.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jerald (1986) “Differential Intolerance for Inequity from Organizational and Individual Agents,” 16 J. of Applied Social Psychology 191.Google Scholar
Guinther, John (1987) “The Jury in America,” in Arnold, M. S. et al., eds., The American Civil Jury. Washington: Roscoe Pound Foundation-American Trial Lawyers Association.Google Scholar
Gutek, Barbara A., and O'Connor, Maureen (1995) “The Empirical Basis for the Reasonable Woman Standard,” 51 J of Social Issues 151.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P. (1989) “The Jury's Response to Business and Corporate Wrongdoing,” 52 Law & Contemporary Problems 177.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P. (1994) “Lay Reactions to Corporate Defendants.” Presented at Law & Society Association annual meeting, Phoenix, AZ (18 June).Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., & Ermann, M. David (1989) “Responses to Corporate versus Individual Wrongdoing,” 13 Law & Human Behavior 151.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., & Lofquist, William S. (1992) “Jurors' Judgments of Business Liability in Tort Cases: Implications for the Litigation Explosion Debate,” 26 Law & Society Rev. 85.Google Scholar
Hans, Valerie P., & Vidmar, Neil (1986) Judging the Jury. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, Penrod, Steven, & Pennington, Nancy (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, & Rasinski, Kenneth A. (1988) “The Concept of Accuracy in Social Judgment,” in Bar-Tal, D. & Kruglanski, A. W., eds., The Social Psychology of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. (1990) “Selection Bias and Self-Selection,” in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., & Newman, P., eds., The New Palgrave: Econometrics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hensler, Deborah R., Marquis, Susan, Abrahamse, Allan F., Berry, Sandra H., Ebener, Patricia A., Lewis, Elizabeth G., Lind, E. Allan, MacCoun, Robert J., Manning, Willard G., Rogowski, Jeannette A., & Vaiana, Mary E. (1991) Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND Corp.Google Scholar
Hills, Stuart L., ed. (1987) Corporate Violence: Injury and Death for Profit. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hogarth, Robin M., & Reder, Melvin W., eds. (1987) Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Irwin A., & Bordens, Kenneth S. (1990) “An Experimental Investigation of Procedural Issues in Complex Tort Trials,” 14 Law & Human Behavior 269.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Allan V. (1990) The Logic of Social Control. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Edmund S., & Loftus, Thomas C. (1992) “Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences,” 22 J. of Applied Social Psychology 102.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter W. (1988) Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jaccard, James, Turrisi, Robert, & Wan, Choi K. (1990) Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, Anne, & Braithwaite, John (1993) “Profits, Pressure and Corporate Law-breaking,” 20 Law & Society Rev. 221.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, & Tversky, Amos, eds. (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Martin F., & Miller, Lynn E. (1978) “Reducing the Effects of Juror Bias,” 36 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 1443.Google Scholar
Keeton, W. Page, ed. (1984) Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts. 5th Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Kerr, Norbert L., MacCoun, Robert J., & Kramer, Geoff P. (1996) “When Are N Heads Better (or Worse) than One? Biased Judgment in Individuals vs. Groups,” in Davis, J. H. & Witte, E., eds., Understanding Group Behavior: Vol. 1, Consensual Action by Small Groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Latané, Bibb (1981) “The Psychology of Social Impact,” 36 American Psychologist 343.Google Scholar
Lempert, Richard (1977) “Modeling Relevance,” 75 Univ. of Michigan Law Rev. 1021.Google Scholar
Lempert, Richard, & Sanders, Joseph (1986) An Invitation to Law and Social Science. New York: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, Allan, MacCoun, Robert J., Ebener, Patricia A., Felstiner, William L. F., Hensler, Deborah R., Resnick, Judtih, & Tyler, Tom R. (1990) “In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System,” 24 Law & Society Rev. 953.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1987) Getting Inside the Black Box: Towards a Better Understanding of Civil Jury Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1989) “Experimental Research on Jury Decision Making,” 244 Science 1046.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1990) “The Emergence of Extralegal Bias during Jury Deliberation,” 17 Criminal Justice & Behavior 303.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1993a) “Is There a 'Deep-Pocket' Bias in the Tort System?” Institute for Civil Justice Issue Paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1993b) “Inside the Black Box: What Empirical Research Tells Us about Decisionmaking by Civil Juries,” in Litan, R. E., ed., Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J. (1993c) “Blaming Others to a Fault,” 6 Chance 31.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J., & Tyler, Tom R. (1988) “The Basis of Citizens' Perceptions of the Criminal Jury: Procedural Fairness, Accuracy, and Efficiency,” 12 Law & Human Behavior 333.Google Scholar
Mills, Judson, & Clark, Margaret (1982) “Exchange and Communal Relationships,” in Wheeler, L., ed., 3 Rev. of Personality & Social Psychology 121. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Monahan, John, & Walker, Laurens (1994) Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials. 3d Ed. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
National Law Journal (1993) “Many Jurors Consider Deep Pockets and Ignore Presumption of Innocence,” National Law J., 22 Feb. 1993, p. S12.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Brian J., & Rottman, David B. (1991) “Does Plaintiff and Defendant Status Matter? A Comparison of Outcomes in Tort Litigation.” Working draft, National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Peterson, Mark (1984) Compensation of Injuries: Civil Jury Verdicts in Cook County. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Priest, George L. (1985) “The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Tort Law,” 14 J. of Legal Studies 461.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. (1992) “Do We Really Know Anything about the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System—and Why Not?” 140 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1147.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael, & Kidd, R. F. (1980) “Human Information Processing and Adjudication: Trial by Heuristics,” 15 Law & Society Rev. 123.Google Scholar
Sanders, Joseph, Hamilton, V. Lee, & Yuasa, Toshiyuki (1994) “Corporate Actor Responsibility in Japan, Russia, and the United States.” Presented at Law & Society Association annual meeting, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. (1974) “Command and Control,” in McKie, J. W., ed., Social Responsibility and the Business Predicament. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Smigel, Erwin O. (1956) “Public Attitudes toward Stealing as Related to the Size of the Victim Organization,” 21 American Sociological Rev. 320.Google Scholar
Stasser, Garold, & Davis, James H. (1981) “Group Decision Making and Social Influence: A Social Interaction Sequence Model,” 88 Psychological Rev. 523.Google Scholar
Taragin, Mark, Willett, Laura R., Wilczek, Adam P., Trout, Richard, & Carson, Jeffrey L. (1992) “The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims,” 117 Annals of Internal Medicine 780.Google Scholar
Tennen, Howard, & Affleck, G. (1990) “Blaming Others for Threatening Events,” 53 Psychological Bull. 843.Google Scholar
Thomas, Ewart A. C., & Parpal, Mary (1987) “Liability as a Function of Plaintiff and Defendant Fault,” 48 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 283.Google Scholar
Tillers, Peter, ed. (1991) “Decision and Inference in Litigation,” 13 (2–3) Cardozo Law Rev. (entire issue).Google Scholar
Tukey, John W. (1977) Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil (1993) “Empirical Evidence on the Deep Pockets Hypothesis: Jury Awards for Pain and Suffering in Medical Malpractice Cases,” 43 Duke Law J. 217.Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil (1994) “Making Inferences about Jury Behavior from Jury Verdict Statistics: Cautions about the Lorelei's Lied,” 18 Law & Human Behavior 599.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David T., & Robinson, J. Neil (1980) “Extra-legal Influences, Group Processes, and Jury Decision-Making: A Psychological Perspective,” 12 North Carolina Central Law J. 96.Google Scholar
Weisburd, David, Waring, Elin, & Wheeler, Stanton (1990) “Class, Status, and the Punishment of White-Collar Criminals,” 15 Law & Social Inquiry 223.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, Weisburd, David, & Bode, Nancy (1982) “Sentencing the White-Collar Offender: Rhetoric and Reality,” 47 American Sociological Rev. 641.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald (1990) “The Behavior of Litigants, Juries, and Professional Arbitrators in Civil Cases: An Empirical Study of Comparative Justice and the Issue of 'Deep Pockets.' “” Presented at Law & Society Association annual meeting, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar