Volume: 11| Issue 1

Winter 2026

How do Civil Jurors Determine Monetary Damage Awards? Connecting Theory to Practice

Submitted by Morgan Wagner, Ph.D., Professor Krystia Reed, JD, Ph.D., Professor Valerie Hans, Ph.D., and Professor Valerie Reyna, Ph.D.

Civil juries are tasked with one of the most complex and consequential decisions in the courtroom: translating emotional and physical harm into dollar amounts. Damage award determinations require jurors to navigate abstract numbers, moral intuitions, and competing perceptions of fairness. For decades, scholars have asked a pressing question: how do jurors actually make these decisions?

Recent psychological research offers powerful insights. Specifically, researchers suggest that jurors rely less on precise calculations and more on the “gist” or underlying meaning of the severity of a plaintiff’s injury in the context of a case before mapping these impressions onto numerical awards. Understanding this process is not just of academic interest. It has direct implications for trial practice, from how attorneys frame damages to how courts instruct juries, and it sheds light on the oft-considered “black box” of damage award decision-making.

In this newsletter, we summarize the core theories, highlight empirical findings, and draw out practical takeaways for trial consultants and litigators who must anticipate, shape, and respond to how jurors think about damages for personal injury.

Fuzzy-Trace Theory

Theorists have proposed a dual-processing model, Fuzzy Trace Theory (FTT), which suggests that people simultaneously encode information in two different ways – in verbatim traces and in gist traces (Reyna & Brainerd, 1991). Verbatim traces are the exact, detailed representation of the information, for example, the exact words and numbers given when learning new information. Conversely, the gist traces of information are also encoded, which are the more abstract, “fuzzy” meaning of the information, or the bottom-line message of what the information means.

In general, people rely more on gist-encoded information when recalling things they have previously learned (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995). Consider the situation when a coworker asks you what the weather will be like tomorrow. You look and see it is going to be 38 degrees, cloudy, with an 80% chance of rain. Do you tell your coworker that exact verbatim information? Or do you communicate the gist – it is going to be cold and rainy, bring a raincoat and an umbrella? This second option communicates that bottom-line meaning of the information, or the gist.

Reliance on gist representations increases with age. Children and adolescents are more likely to rely on verbatim information, while adults are more likely to use gist representations of information (Reyna, Müller, & Edelson, 2023). One area in which legal researchers have applied this theory is jury decision making; specifically, how civil juries reach monetary damage award decisions.

Hans-Reyna Model of Jury Decision Making

The Hans-Reyna Model of jury decision making applies FTT to explain how civil jurors determine monetary damage awards. This model assumes that when jurors are learning about case information during a trial, they are encoding both the verbatim and gist versions of the information (Hans & Reyna, 2011). Importantly, this process involves translating their gist judgments into a verbatim, specific award. First, jurors decide, based on the gist of the case information gathered during the trial and individual attitudes, whether damages are warranted or not. Next, if warranted, jurors categorize how severe the plaintiff’s injury is (high or low, otherwise medium) and, thus, how much compensation is warranted (high/medium/low). Finally, jurors use these determinations to help them map their judgment onto a monetary amount to be given (Hans & Reyna, 2011).

Another concept important to gist-based guidance and decision-making is that of the anchoring heuristic, a psychological phenomenon where, when a number is introduced, people subsequently base their estimate on that value (either consciously or subconsciously; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Chapman and Bornstein (1996) found evidence that anchors could affect the awards jurors give in personal injury cases. In fact, as plaintiff requests increased (up to the most extreme of requests), so too did award amounts (Marti & Wissler, 2000). Because jurors are relying on “fuzzy” gist categories, numerical anchors can serve as important reference points, guidelines for translating the gist of the award into a concrete numerical value. Without anchors, the translation of a “large” award amount relies on an individual juror’s perception of what large is; $500,000 might be a high award for some jurors, whereas others might label $5,000,000 as high (Reyna & Brainerd, 2023).

Testing the Hans-Reyna Model

Our research team has conducted several tests of the Hans-Reyna Model to examine how juries make civil damage award decisions. In the first study testing this model, mock jurors read about a civil liability case and made individual assessments of an appropriate award, the range of acceptable awards, and how severe they perceived the injury to be (Reyna et al., 2015). Researchers found support for the Hans-Reyna Model—numerical guidance provided to mock-jurors to help them reach an award decision affected the award amounts, especially guidance that was meaningful to the decision (i.e., award size relative to average annual salary) and conveyed the gist of the recommended number as large or small (Reyna et al., 2015). Our research team followed up with a second study to further solidify the findings, and again support for the model was found (Hans et al., 2018). Results showed that anchors affected award amounts; meaningful large anchors increased awards, meaningful small anchors decreased awards, and meaningless anchors (regardless of size) were unrelated to award amounts (Hans et al., 2018). In a third study of the Hans-Reyna Model, meaningful anchors again led to awards that appropriately reflected the perceived pain and suffering of the plaintiff and decreased the variability of awards (Helm et al., 2020).

To further test the real-world application of the model, the research team conducted a study where mock jurors were given different kinds of attorney guidance; verbal, numerical, both, and no-guidance conditions were tested (Hans et al., 2022). Importantly, results indicated that jurors without any form of guidance still gave awards that matched the gist of the perceived level of injury severity. However, awards from mock jurors who were given numerical guidance (alone and in tandem with verbal guidance) were less variable than awards that were unguided or only verbally guided (Hans et al., 2022). So, we found that juries could do a decent job getting the gist of the injuries, but their dollar awards were more consistent with numerical guidance.

Much of the research on damage award decision making, including our own, studies how individual jurors arrive at awards. But damage awards are a group product of the jury. We wanted to explore the process of group decision making about damage awards. Therefore, we conducted another research project with deliberating mock juries. We found that jury awards were influenced by numerical guidance from the plaintiff’s attorney (Reed et al., 2024). We also discovered that jury deliberations improved individual jurors’ awards, as post-deliberation awards were more consistent and reflective of gist assessments than the individual awards jurors reached before they had deliberated with others (Reed et al., 2024).

During in-person data collection of the mock jury deliberation study, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the research project for a time. When we restarted, we continued data collection online and held 30 jury deliberations virtually. This allowed us to compare virtual and in-person jury deliberations. In a forthcoming article (Reed et al., in press), our team found minimal differences in deliberation quality or juror experience between modalities. In person, there were significantly more interruptions among jurors, but more topics were discussed during deliberations compared to virtual juries (Reed et al., in press). Virtual jurors reported exerting more cognitive effort compared to jurors who completed the study in person (Reed et al., in press). Therefore, despite concerns that virtual deliberations would result in less engaged jurors or markedly different outcomes, we found a surprising degree of similarity and overlap in the reactions of mock jurors who participated in person or online. That is suggestive evidence that an online version of the traditional in-person jury trial could function effectively, should the need arise because of health emergencies or natural disasters or to extend jury participation to extremely remote rural communities. 

The Role of Numeracy

As part of this project, we have had the opportunity to look at variables outside the direct Hans-Reyna Model, which are important to note. Here, we highlight numeracy, which is a person’s ability with math and numbers. Generally, there are two types of numeracy – objective and subjective. Objective numeracy assesses a person’s ability to do basic math (Lipkus et al., 2001) while subjective numeracy assesses a person’s comfort with numbers and estimates of their own math ability (Fagerlin et al., 2007). Although the two are correlated, the correlation is not perfect. Research suggests that many people overestimate their abilities on a variety of cognitive tasks, including mathematical tasks (Dunning et al., 2004)—although jurors complain that the numerical part of the award process is especially challenging. As part of this project, we wanted to test whether jurors who were better at math would be better able to determine awards (Hans & Reyna, 2011; Helm et al., 2017). For example, being able to multiply a per diem rate across a specific time period or having a better grasp on fractions and base rates could improve jurors’ award determinations (Helm et al., 2017). We found that more numerate jurors gave awards that were more reflective of the injury’s severity and were less variable in amount, compared to less numerate jurors (Helm et al., 2020). However, more numerate jurors reported having more difficulty determining an award amount during the deliberation process (Helm et al., 2020).

The Strengths of Juries

The Hans-Reyna model has practical implications for civil trial practitioners, including improving jurors’ experiences during damage award deliberations, securing more consistent and appropriate awards for their clients, and guidance for leading the jury to the best decisions for their clients. However, it also underscores the strength of civil jury deliberations. Even without guidance or anchors, jurors are generally well-equipped to arrive at consistent, valid monetary damage award amounts that faithfully reflect the gist of injuries (Reed et al., 2024).

Research suggests that gist-based guidance can improve juror award determinations as well as the overall experience of jurors on civil juries (Reed et al., 2019). Additionally, some jury reforms, such as the ability to ask questions and discuss among jurors during evidence presentations, visually depicting statistical evidence to highlight gist, and employing specific training or warnings related to numerical information, could help improve the juror experience (Helm et al., 2017). Serving on a jury, especially one tasked with determining monetary damages to compensate a plaintiff for their pain and suffering, can be a challenging task, but jurors often report high levels of satisfaction with the justice system and improved perceptions of fairness following their jury experiences (Gastil et al., 2010). In the end, civil jury service demonstrates that grappling with complexity is not a weakness of the system, but one of its enduring strengths.



Acknowledgements: The research team would like to thank the NSF for funding several studies in this line of work (SES-1536238, 2015-2019) as well as the dozens of research assistants for their hard work at all stages of the research process.

Morgan Wagner

Morgan Wagner is a Graduate Program Coordinator at the University of Iowa. She completed her PhD in Legal Psychology and a postdoc at the university of Texas at El Paso, where she studied the collateral consequences of justice system involvement and legal decision making. She has worked on projects examining the effects of juvenile records on hiring outcomes, understanding taxpayers' perceptions of fairness and preparation preferences, and fourth amendment privacy expectations, using a variety of methodologies to answer psycho-legal questions.

Krystia Reed

Krystia Reed is an Associate Professor in the Legal Psychology program at the University of Texas at El Paso. She studies the social-cognitive psychological factors that drive people's legal decisions. She is especially interested in using insights about the psychological mechanisms underlying legal judgments to improve legal processes and policy.

Valerie P. Hans

Valerie P. Hans, Charles F. Rechlin Professor of Law, is one of the nation's leading authorities on the jury system. Trained as a social scientist, she has carried out extensive research and lectured around the globe on juries and jury reforms. She was recently recognized, along with her coauthors, with the National Civil Justice Institute’s Scholarship Award for their collaborative work on the civil jury’s role in democratic governance.

Valerie Reyna

Valerie Reyna is the Lois and Melvin Tukman Professor of Psychology, Director of the Human Neuroscience Institute, and Co-director of the Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research at Cornell University, where she helped found the Psychology and Law Program. Her research on memory, judgment, and decision making, especially decisions involving risk and uncertainty, has been widely applied in law, medicine, and engineering. Dr. Reyna has received numerous awards and distinctions for her research, including being elected to the Society of Experimental Psychologists and to the National Academy of Medicine.

Will the Jury Follow the Instructions?

Politics and the Jury

By Hon. Mark A. Drummond (ret.)

Executive/Judicial Director of the Civil Jury Project

“Do each of you solemnly swear…that you will render a verdict only on the evidence introduced and in accordance with the instructions of the court, so help you God?”

-sample juror oath

“You must accept and apply the law as I explain it to you, whether you agree with it or not.”

-sample jury instruction

I typed “defy court order” into a search engine. I got over 2 million hits. Will these news stories filter down into the jury room? Will the jurors follow the law as the judge gives it? Years ago a similar concern was raised about the “CSI Effect” on jury pools hearing criminal cases.

So few civil cases ever reach a jury. It takes a lot of time and resources. How can we be sure the jury will follow the law given this steady diet of daily new stories? Will we see an increase in hung juries, jurors discharged for failing to follow instructions and, ultimately, verdicts that are clearly the result of jury nullification?

Add on top of these stories the increased political polarization in this country. These questions led me to an article written by Professor Richard Jolly. Two sentences from his article jumped out at me: “Americans loathe each other and rationally believe that Red and Blue Juries are unfairly relying on their partisan ideologies in resolving disputes. Put simply: Americans don’t like each other anymore.” I called Professor Jolly and, after talking with him, here are my suggestions for addressing these concerns.

Do Your Research

An ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. It is ethical to see what potential jurors have posted on the internet. Find out from the court when you can get the names of the jurors. In some courts names are only revealed the day of trial. Nevertheless, it is worth your time to have someone put the names into a search engine to see what is posted. You may get clues as to whether that potential juror will follow the rules.

This is a process that should be done before, during and after trial, the latter being important in cases that you lost. At the beginning of the case you may find information that will guide your preemptory or cause challenges. Were Professor Wigmore alive today I believe he would substitute “social media” for “cross-examination” as the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." I have seen so many cases fall apart or settle based upon social media posts.

Some people just have a constitutional inability to not post about every moment of their lives. They think that the entire world is waiting for their next post. If you need a laugh at this point, read the article from the Onion I have include in the Resources below.

I would caution the jurors against researching the case, or the witnesses or posting anything about the trial. I outlined the dire consequences to the parties should there be a violation. I did this at the end of the day and at every break. Nevertheless, I still found myself dismissing jurors and bringing in alternates for those who could not follow the rules. Although rarer, some cases have been returned for trial when misconduct was discovered after the verdict.

Enlist the Judge

Jury selection procedures vary widely by jurisdiction and by judge. Case specific juror questionnaires can help you uncover those jurors who may be so biased that they cannot follow the judge’s instructions. In my opinion, the key to getting judges on board is to convince them that case specific questionnaires will save time.

Good judges are very concerned about wasting the jurors’ time. A juror who thinks that we don’t care about their time will not be a good juror…for either side. If sent well ahead of time some jurors may be eliminated immediately by agreement of counsel and the court. No one wants to waste time on a juror who clearly cannot follow the rules.

I believe attorneys who are great uncovering biases that may override the judge’s instructions do two things. First, they create an atmosphere where the jurors feel comfortable talking about their likes and dislikes. This sometimes comes in the form of the attorney revealing their own bias for or against certain things. Or it may be the attorney saying that there are many cases in the courthouse and that some jurors are better suited for other cases. It is no reflection on them. It is simply a fact of life.

Second, they address the elephant in the room. If they represent an insurance company, they ask if the company will receive the same justice as would an individual. If permitted, they invoke the instruction that all parties must be treated fairly and in the same manner. They also use the tool of having each juror verbalize that they understand this and will apply it. Professor Jolly notes that, “… studies show that voir dire questions as to potential biases can help limit the impact of those biases during deliberation and issuing a verdict.”

Political Polarization

In a jury trial each party is entitled to a “fair cross-section” of the community. This “cross-section” has never required a mix of political parties on each jury. In fact, in some locales this would be very problematic.

However, given the current climate I suggest we address it head on. Most judges frown on attorneys asking about political affiliation. I think it is naïve to believe that you can discern how a juror will decide based solely on whether they are a Democrat, Republican or Independent.

What about questions such as, “I’m not going to ask if you are a member of any political party, but are any of you going to decide this case based solely upon being a member of a political party? Will you set your party affiliation to one side and follow the law as the judge states?”

After all, only light can defeat the darkness.

Postscript:

This topic is huge. It is impossible to cover it in a 1200-word article. So, I have expanded the Resources section. Professor Jolly ends his article with the hope that in the jury room perhaps hyper-partisan politics will be put in the corner as jurors from every political persuasion come together to decide on a fair and impartial verdict according to the law as given. He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, “By making men pay attention to things other than their own affairs, [juries] combat that individual selfishness which is like rust in society.”

This article first appeared in Litigation News (ABA) Fall 2025, Vol. 51. No. 1

Resources:

Richard Loren Jolly, Red Juries & Blue Juries, 57 Ariz. St. L.J. 229 (2025)

Jonathan A. Porter, Will Juries Latch onto Deepfake Concerns Like They Did to Scientific Evidence During the Infamous "CSI Effect"? , Criminal Justice Section, February 8, 2024

Clint Townson, The Juror’s Badge of Courage, Litigation Journal, Summer 2024

Sari W. Montgomery, The Dos and Don’ts of Using Social Media in Jury Selection, GPSolo Magazine, February 16, 2023

Jeffery T. Frederick, Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Supplemental Juror Questionnaires, ABA, May 7, 2019

Litigation Section, The What, Why, and How of Case-Specific Juror Questionnaires in Business Litigation, ABA Learning Center, On Demand Course, Recorded June 16, 2025 

Hon. Mark Drummond (ret.), “Voir Dire: Don’t Let the Judge Cut You Out,” Litigation News, (Spring 2012)

Area Woman Decides Not to Post Facebook Status That Would Have Tipped Gun Control Debate, the Onion, January 11, 2013 

The Hon. Mark A. Drummond (ret.) is the Executive / Judicial Director of the Civil Jury Project. He was a trial lawyer for 20 years before serving on the bench as a trial court judge in Illinois for 20 years. He is a program director and co-director for Teacher Training for The National Institute for Trial Advocacy. For over 25 years he has written the Practice Points column for Litigation News, a publication of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association. He is licensed to practice in Illinois and has applied to practice in New York.

Proposed Judicial Advisor Poll: Comments Welcomed from All CJP Advisors

Political Climate and Jury Trials

Recent public debate has included increasingly sharp criticism of courts and the judiciary. We are interested in whether this broader political environment has had any observable effect on jury selection or jury deliberations in your courtroom.

Your responses are anonymous and will be reported only in aggregate.

1. Over the past 2–3 years, have you observed any change in juror attitudes toward the court system or the judiciary?

☐ No noticeable change

☐ Slight change

☐ Moderate change

☐ Significant change

☐ Unsure

Optional comment: ___________________________

2. Have you noticed an increase in prospective jurors expressing strong political or ideological views during voir dire?

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Unsure

If yes, please describe briefly: ___________________________

3. Do you currently allow questions regarding political affiliation or political viewpoints during voir dire?

☐ Yes, routinely

☐ Yes, in limited circumstances

☐ No

☐ Depends on the case

Why or why not? ___________________________

4. Compared with prior years, have you experienced any change in the frequency of hung juries?

☐ Fewer hung juries

☐ About the same

☐ Slight increase

☐ Significant increase

☐ Unsure

5. Have you observed what you would consider an increase in instances of jury nullification or verdicts seemingly driven by factors other than the evidence and the law?

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Unsure

Optional comment: ___________________________

6. Do you believe that political polarization or public criticism of the judiciary has affected jury deliberations in any way?

☐ Not at all

☐ Slightly

☐ Moderately

☐ Significantly

☐ Unsure

Optional comment: ___________________________

7. Have you modified any courtroom or voir dire practices in response to these concerns?

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes, please describe: ___________________________

8. Any additional observations regarding juror behavior, trust in the courts, or trends you believe practitioners should be aware of?

Optional background (for context only)

Years on the bench:

☐ 0–5 ☐ 6–10 ☐ 11–20 ☐ 20+

Primary docket:

☐ Criminal ☐ Civil ☐ Mixed ☐ Other

I would be willing to discuss my experience:

Name:_____________________ Telephone #_______________________

Email:____________________________________________________

Mark Drummond

Executive/

Judicial Director