OBJECTIVE A mock jury experiment tested the effects of attorney guidance and jury deliberation to mitigate the challenges that civil juries face in assessing damages. HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that two types of attorney guidance (per diem, per diem + lump sum), theoretically based in the Hans-Reyna model of jury decision making, would improve jury decision making compared with no guidance against five key benchmarks: injury assessment, validity, reliability, verbatim-gist coherence, and metacognitive experience. We expected that deliberation would increase reliability of, confidence in, and polarization of awards compared with predeliberation. METHOD Community members (N = 317; 61% women; 86.1% White; Mage = 48.68 years) deliberated in 54 mock juries. Participants watched a videotaped trial involving an automobile accident in which two plaintiffs sustained concussions (one mild and one severe). The plaintiffs' attorney's closing arguments varied attorney guidance (no guidance, per diem, per diem + lump sum). Mock jurors provided individual judgments before deliberating as a jury and reaching group verdicts and awards. RESULTS Juries performed well against benchmarks. Providing gist-based guidance with a meaningful award recommendation increased the validity of jurors' individual damage awards (η²p jurors = .03) and the reliability of jury damage awards (η²p jurors = .04; η²p jurors = .20); gist-based guidance without an award recommendation did not improve performance against benchmarks and increased perceptions of decision-making difficulty (η²p = .13). Deliberation increased reliability of (η²p = .17), confidence in (η²p = .02), and polarization of (d = 2.14) awards compared with predeliberation. CONCLUSION Juries performed well against objective benchmarks of performance (injury assessment, validity, reliability, and verbatim-gist coherence), and deliberation improved performance compared with predeliberation decisions. Jury decisions were further influenced by attorney closing arguments (the guidance manipulation), especially when the attorney requests a lump sum, which can serve as a powerful influence on jury awards, mainly by setting an upper limit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

有意义的数字的力量：律师指导和陪审团审议提高了损害赔偿裁决的可靠性和要点有效性。


目的 模拟陪审团实验测试了律师指导和陪审团审议的效果，以减轻民事陪审团在评估损失时面临的挑战。假设我们假设两种类型的律师指导（每日津贴、每日津贴+一次性付款）理论上基于陪审团决策的汉斯-雷纳模型，与没有针对五个关键基准的指导相比，将改善陪审团的决策：伤害评估、有效性、可靠性、逐字连贯性和元认知体验。我们预计，与预审议相比，审议将提高裁决的可靠性、信心和两极分化。方法 社区成员（N = 317；61% 为女性；86.1% 为白人；法师 = 48.68 岁）在 54 个模拟陪审团中进行审议。参与者观看了一场涉及车祸的录像审判，其中两名原告遭受脑震荡（一名轻度，一名严重）。原告律师的结案陈词改变了律师指导（无指导、每日津贴、每日津贴+一次性付款）。模拟陪审员在作为陪审团进行审议并达成集体裁决和奖项之前提供个人判断。结果 评审团在基准测试中表现良好。提供基于要点的指导和有意义的裁决建议，提高了陪审员个人损害赔偿裁决的有效性（η²p 陪审员 = .03）和陪审团损害赔偿裁决的可靠性（η²p 陪审员 = .04；η²p 陪审员 = .20）；没有奖项推荐的基于要点的指导并没有提高基准绩效，并增加了对决策难度的认知（η²p = .13）。与预审议相比，审议提高了裁决的可靠性 (η²p = .17)、置信度 (η²p = .02) 和两极分化 (d = 2.14)。 结论 陪审团在客观绩效基准（伤害评估、有效性、可靠性和逐字要点连贯性）方面表现良好，与预议决定相比，审议提高了绩效。陪审团的决定进一步受到律师结案陈词（指导操纵）的影响，特别是当律师要求一次性付款时，这可以对陪审团的裁决产生强大的影响，主要是通过设定上限。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。