Law360 (June 12, 2020, 5:11 PM EDT) --
As trials begin again in the U.S., companies that defend themselves in front of juries will be confronted with a difficult choice — should they share with jurors the actions they took in response to the pandemic? Sharing such facts with jurors could enhance the credibility of the company, but it could be viewed as pandering or trying to capitalize on a tragedy. We recently completed a research project to help guide companies in deciding whether it will be beneficial to share their COVID-19 response at trial.
It is first useful to contemplate why a company would consider sharing such information in the first place, since it is highly unlikely to apply to the facts of the case. Plaintiffs hope the jurors will adopt a framework where they perceive a greedy company that will not do what is needed to protect its customers, patients or employees. Credibility — including goodwill, trustworthiness and a positive image, usually built on acts of good corporate behavior in the community — can help offset the story being told by the plaintiff that the business is uncaring and, most likely, puts "profits over safety."
The reasoning used in this argument is a type of informal logic called person/act reasoning. Person/act arguments are a type of co-existential reasoning, or argument by sign. Sign reasoning suggests that one thing can act as a sign of another thing, even though no direct causal connection is observed. For example, if you step outside and see wet pavement and people lowering their umbrellas, it is fair to deduce that it was raining, even though you did not actually see the drops falling from the sky.
Once the defendant establishes through examples that the company makes positive contributions to the community, the hope is they can change the perception of the company and create a more positive image of a business. This can contribute to a positive view of the business through person/act reasoning, that it would not harm its customers, patients or employees.
This is all great in theory, but will it actually work in the case of sharing information about actions around COVID-19? It certainly could create a positive view of the company, but it could also have the opposite effect. Jurors might believe the sharing of this information is self-serving and attempting to exploit the tragedy that has been caused by the pandemic. The present studies set out to investigate whether sharing the information would be beneficial or not.
The participants in both studies came from Amazon's Mechanical Turk. We collected large initial samples (just over 300 in each study). We excluded participants who did not spend a sufficient amount of time on the survey and those who gave inconsistent answers. We retained a large number of participants in both studies (231 in study 1 and 226 in study 2).
Participants were asked to assume the role of a juror and were told they would read a description of a pending lawsuit, including a presentation from the plaintiff followed by a presentation from the defense. A brief statement of the case alerted participants that it was a civil suit against Empire Medical Device Company, which was accused of negligently manufacturing parts for a knee replacement. All participants were presented with a short script (732 words) from the plaintiff detailing the allegations against the company.
The lawsuit included 10 plaintiffs who were seeking $1 million each in compensation. Participants were then assigned to one of two conditions. In version one, participants read a defense script (682 words) that included specific details of the company's donations of PPE to help front-line health care workers in the community as part of an effort to build trust and goodwill for the company. In the second version, the specific information about the PPE donation was excluded (61 words).
After reading the scripts, participants answered questions related to negligence, causation and damages. In addition, participants rated the strength of the case for the plaintiff and the defense and provided an overall leaning in the case. Participants were also asked to report their level of agreement to several statements related to the case including, "Empire is a good company committed to helping people," and "Empire is a trustworthy company."
Study 2 followed the same procedure with one important change. The defense script was changed to increase the strength of the appeal to corporate good behavior. The new defense script was longer (729 words) and had more words devoted to the donation of PPE (108 words).
We were interested in studying the influence of corporate good behavior on several key trial-related outcomes. In both study 1 and study 2, we found consistent evidence that invoking PPE donations did not improve the outcome for the defendant. In both studies, the results of all the statistical tests confirmed there was no difference in any outcome between the participants in the condition where they received PPE-related information and those who did not receive the information.
Immediately after the presentations, we asked all participants their leaning in the case. In both studies, we found no difference between those who learned about the PPE donations and those who did not.
Table 1 reports the frequencies for the leanings. In both studies, there was a very slight benefit for the defense among participants who read the PPE information, but the difference was small and not statistically significant.
Table 1. Frequency Distribution for Leaning in the Case
Participants were asked to rate the strength of the defense case. Table 2 reports the frequencies for the answers to this question. Less than half of all participants thought the defense case was strong. There were slightly more people who reported the defense case was strong when they received PPE-related information, but the difference was small and not statistically significant.
Table 2. Frequency Distribution for Strength of the Defendant's case
In addition, participants did not report more favorable attitudes toward the defendant, Empire Medical Device Company. Participants rated their level of agreement with the statement that "Empire is a good company" (Table 3) and that "Empire is trustworthy" (Table 4). There was no statistically significant difference in the level of agreement for either statement between those who learned about the PPE donation and those who did not.
Table 3. Frequency Distribution for Reaction to "Empire Is a Good Company"
Table 4. Frequency Distribution for Reaction to "Empire Is Trustworthy"
We also investigated the influence of goodwill on verdict-related questions. We asked participants if Empire was negligent in manufacturing its product. In both study 1 and study 2, we found no difference in a finding of negligence based on whether they received information related to the PPE donation.
Table 5 reports the frequencies of the verdict question. While there was a slightly lower chance of a finding of negligence when participants received the PPE information, the difference was not statistically significant.
Table 5. Frequency Distribution for Verdict Question on Negligence
There also was no difference between the groups in the amount of damages awarded. In study 2, we asked the participants who found Empire to be negligent to provide an exact dollar amount they would award. We found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the amount of damages they awarded. Those who learned about the PPE donation awarded a slightly smaller amount ($6,311,651) than the group who did not learn about the donation ($6,849,119). The difference was not statistically significant.
The results of both studies confirm there was no significant difference in the verdicts, attitudes or damage awards between people who heard about a company's efforts to help the community through donations of PPE versus those who did not hear this information. There was a small benefit in most categories, but not enough to conclude with statistical certainty that it had anything to do with the PPE messages.
Although this study focused on the issue of sharing information about corporate responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the results likely apply in other contexts.
In many cases, we often are asked if the good deeds of a company should be an important part of the defense strategy. These results suggest that such a strategy likely will not significantly alter the outcome of the case. It appears that jurors will discount the information as irrelevant to the case at hand and ignore it when making their decision. This conclusion is consistent with our observations from many mock trials where jurors expressed that the information was not germane and that they did not factor it in to their final decision.
While the inclusion of the information did not improve the outcome for the defense, it also did not cause a boomerang effect in jurors or a backlash against the business. Jurors did not seem to find such information offensive or distasteful. The results revealed a marginal (and insignificant) improvement in verdicts, attitudes and damages.
Consequently, if it does not take away too much time from the rest of the key arguments, a short public relations effort would not be harmful. However, the defendant should not get their hopes up that it will change the result of the trial.
It is also important to note that this project used case facts purposefully slanted in favor of the plaintiff. The results could change when the defense case is stronger.
For instance, when the facts were balanced, would the blatant appeal to goodwill distract the jury from the facts related to the key issues of the case? Would they see this as pandering (and boomerang) when there was a "better" argument to be made? Or would they find the good works more compelling when there is more evidence the company did the right thing? This would be a worthwhile scenario to examine in future research.
One final consideration is whether enough emphasis was given to the good works to make the test legitimate.
In the first study, the defendant's script that included the good works spent 9% of its time on the PPE donations. In the second study, it was 15%. Few defense speeches of an hour (opening or closing) would spend more than nine minutes focused on a company's good works. Any more than that would result in the omission of key defense arguments and likely increase the chance of a boomerang effect. This also would be a useful focus for future research.
Glenn Kuper, Ph.D., is a senior consultant and Jeffrey Jarman, Ph.D., is a consultant at Tsongas Litigation Consulting. Jarman is also director of the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
For a reprint of this article, please contact email@example.com.