How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: A comparison of students and jurors

Abstract

Jurors' decision-making processes are often influenced by extra-legal factors, including judgments of defendants and plaintiffs. Two studies comparing the decisions of university students with those of community jurors sought to determine if extra-legal factors such as individual differences (including identity as a student or juror participant), the reason for surgery (medically necessary vs. elective), the type of surgery (e.g., gastric bypass, nasal reconstruction) or weight of the patient influenced jurors' decisions and perceptions in medical malpractice suits, such that participants would hold negative perceptions of overweight patients or patients who undergo elective surgeries. Results indicate that students and jurors differ in perceptions of the patient's injury and perceptions of risk, which explains some of the variance in liability verdicts. Students were more likely to find doctors liable, but also were more likely to assign responsibility to patients than were jurors. Patients who had undergone elective surgery were seen as more responsible for their situation - and their doctors were assigned less responsibility - than those who had undergone a medically necessary surgery. Tests of weight bias showed that jurors found overweight patients less responsible for their situation than patients of normal weight, but students showed the opposite pattern. Theoretical explanations are explored and implications discussed.

Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

“…The fourth paper reported on mock jurors' decision‐making in medical malpractice cases in which the plaintiffs sued physicians who performed surgeries that went badly. Reichert, Miller, Bornstein, and Shelton () compared the judgments of students and community members acting as mock jurors, varying the reason for surgery (medically necessary vs. elective), the type of surgery (gastric bypass vs. nasal reconstruction), and measured individual difference factors, such as whether participants held negative perceptions of overweight patients who undergo elective surgeries. Although the authors found individual differences between students and community participants in relation to these attributes, those individual differences did not produce results that consistently favored one side over the other.…”

Understanding Crime Control Theater

“…Whether an issue is relevant to the self is likely related to someone’s support for laws related to that issue. Past studies have suggested that relevance to a particular issue is an important consideration (Reichert, Miller, Bornstein, & Shelton, 2011; S. L. Taylor, 2004).…”

“…One participant characteristic that might be relevant to policy support in the current study is whether the participant is a student or a community member. While previous research has pointed to personal relevance as an explanation for differences between community member and student samples (see Reichert et al, 2011), this study aims to add to this literature by directly examining differences between students and a more diverse sample regarding support for CCT policy, which could affect college students. 1…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…However, differences between the two samples are likely to be more nuanced and context dependent. For example, McCabe and Krauss (2011) found that students were insensitive to differences in the type of risk assessment testimony (clinical versus structured) in a simulated sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment proceeding, whereas venire jurors were differentially influenced by the type of testimony; yet, they also found that the intrinsic cognitive effort could predict verdicts in undergraduates but not venire jurors (see also Reichert, Miller, Bornstein, & Shelton, 2011 for more nuances between samples).…”