I am honored to have been a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) since the early 1980s, when I was in graduate school. The APA is the largest professional organization for psychologists in the world, with over 133,000 members. On the day I am writing this post, I have renewed my APA membership for next year, thus, it is interesting for this topic to be next on my list of topics about which to write. The APA supports all kinds of psychologists, from clinicians, to academics, to people who, like me, work in applied settings. Although we are a

A challenging aspect of our trial consulting work is timing. It is always an issue for us to ramp up when we are engaged for a project. There is lead time in all that we do. Some clients, particularly repeat clients, understand this and call us well in advance of their “need.” Other times it is not so much an issue of a short front end, but rather a long, lingering one. I’m thinking of one case we handled, in particular. We did the intake and proposal for the case 10 years before we finally did the mock jury research.

Helping is one component of altruism. Other components are an orientation toward other people, instead of to oneself, and a generally prosocial outlook (as opposed to an antisocial outlook). Most theories of altruism include the component of enhancing other people’s welfare at some cost to oneself (in terms of time, money, etc.). Altruistic people are more likely than other people to derive benefit from helping others, such as increased self esteem, pleasure, or hope that their generosity will be reciprocated. Some social psychological theories of altruism consider it to be the opposite of aggression. Interestingly, there is considerably more research

Over the years, many people have asked me what makes me qualified to work as a jury/trial consultant. I explain that I have a Ph.D. in social psychology, which is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by other people and situations. Social thinking, social influence, and social behavior are studied by my colleagues and me, with the goal of understanding the ways in which individual and group behavior is influenced by others’ presence and behavior. In consideration of the fact that a jury is comprised of individual jurors, who must work together to

I keep a list of things clients have said during or after working with us on mock jury research. These tidbits illustrate the eye opening reactions some attorneys have when observing jurors deliberate. One of my favorites was from (now retired) Pete Burkert in Fort Myers, FL. After a series of mock juries, he said, excitedly, “It’s almost like cheating!” He was thrilled to know what resonated with typical jurors so that he could customize his case presentation. Knowing potential outcomes is one thing. Learning how to talk to a jury in their language is, however, critical in achieving

Several recent client/case events prompted this post. My biased view of litigation is that it is best done when as much input (a.k.a. data) is considered. This includes data from various experts, but also data from mock juries used to evaluate the risks of litigation. The first example is with a case that settled prior to the scheduled mock jury research. We are rarely privy to settlement decisions, including how much was paid/received, etc., but what I do know is that mock jury research would provide considerable direction as to what is a “good settlement.” A “good settlement” is

One thing we learned the hard way, many years ago, is that advancing money on behalf a client is risky. On one of our first cases, we were given the verbal go ahead by an associate level attorney whose boss had told him to do so. We were very excited to work with this attorney, whom we had known for about 2 years. He was an interesting guy, a successful plaintiff’s lawyer, and we’d talked directly with him about the case. I wrote a check to our jury recruiter, advancing the up front cost to the recruiter on behalf of

“Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff” is a phrase used to suggest one should relax, chill out, and not worry about the little things, things which sometime seem out of one’s control. Well, that’s great. But, our “day job” as trial consultants doesn’t allow it. Neither does my prior advocation, photography. For example, when photographing people at events, the photographer has to watch the person’s expression; if it is a group of people, it is even more challenging. The photographer has to look at the eyes, the smiles, the hands, feet, etc. Ensuring things are in focus and that there

My post about whether the mock jurors take it seriously reminded me of another aspect of this client related surprise. Watching a group of people, mock jurors, listen to the case arguments in a mock trial can sometimes be misleading. Some mock jurors are clearly engaged, others have their eyes closed, others are frantically taking notes, some are squinting (perhaps because they forgot their glasses), and others are making eye contact with the attorneys, even smiling at them. All of these visual cues are subject to being misread. Often, attorneys come into the observation room and comment on their perceptions

A client, who had never observed a Magnus mock trial, asked the question which is the title of this post during a recent mock trial. The “they” is the mock jurors. The “it” is the case. The answer is YES! The rest of the story is that, despite the mock jurors knowing they are only to be present for a limited period of time, they “get into it.” They are told they are discussing an actual, active, case (for ethical reasons, we tell them the truth). Magnus’ jurors are randomly recruited for our mock juries and focus groups; they