By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm –
With Standard & Poor’s recent decision to deny the U.S. a AAA credit rating, many Americans are feeling a little downgraded about now. For most of us, I can hope, that is a temporary feeling. But for others, especially in these economic times, it is a more constant aspect of their lives. These Americans, including increasingly those who show up for jury duty, are what the researchers call “status inconsistent.” They may be higher in social prestige than in economic means (like teachers), or they may be highly educated, while holding a lower-level position. Indeed, these days, they may have an MBA and be washing dishes or be unemployed. Those who still have a job are increasingly claiming economic hardship, because they want to keep that job. As those appeals increasingly find a sympathetic ear from the judge, the jury pool will contain a greater proportion of the un- and under-employed, including a higher number of status inconsistent jurors.
So what do we know about those in our jury pool who may be living at a station that is less than what they expected and trained for? According to both socio-economic theory and recent research, downgraded and status-inconsistent jurors are likely to see the world differently, and judge your case differently. This post takes a closer look at the qualities of the status inconsistent juror, and provides some advice on how to spot them.
Societies are stratified – that much is obvious. But according to sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1967), what separates our modern society from, say, feudalism is that there are multiple different dimensions of stratification (income, prestige, knowledge, fame, etc.) making it likely that individuals will rank high on some dimensions and low on others.
One implication of this is that class still matters. An article out this month, (Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2011), for example focuses on the ways in which the advantaged and disadvantaged experience the world very differently, with important implications for how sensitive, empathic, altruistic they are each likely to be when sitting in judgement of others. But another implication is that a specific subset of the disadvantaged — namely, those who expected to be advantaged — are likely to carry unique attributes as jurors. Specifically, Lenski documented a relationship between status inconsistency and a liberal tendency (likely to manifest as a pro-plaintiff leaning in civil cases).
This result is consistent with our findings as well. While we don’t pledge allegiance to the predictive power of demographics in all contexts, status inconsistency is a common feature on high risk juror profiles we prepare for the defense, and for a good reason. The JD who fails to find a job out of law school is likely to see the world in a way that on average makes a plaintiff’s narrative (a story of injustice) just a little bit more plausible.
It is also true that jurors who experience greater economic pressure than they feel they deserve are more likely to think the worst of corporate America. We measured this tendency during the current recession and found that those who are economically vulnerable and believe that they have been harmed in the current recession are significantly likely to score higher on a variety of anti-corporate questions.
The implication for corporate defendants is clear: All things being equal, you want are economically comfortable jurors, which doesn’t necessarily mean well-off jurors, but should not include status inconsistent jurors.
In order to help you spot and strike those jurors, I’ll leave you with two recommendations.
1. Explore Status Inconsistency Carefully in a Supplemental Juror Questionnaire.
This is one area where the direct approach doesn’t work. Asking potential jurors, “Are you depressed about your current social status?” might be a little off-putting. Still, there are a few questions that you can ask. For example:
-
Do you believe that you should receive more respect and attention than you currently receive at work?
- Do you feel that you earn less than you deserve, about what you deserve, or more than you deserve?
- Do you believe your education prepared you for your current job, or prepared you for a different job?
- Are you interested in changing occupations? If yes, what would your preferred occupation be?
2. Compare Education to Occupation.
When you don’t have the luxury of a supplemental juror questionnaire, there is one easy but crude way to assess status inconsistency: look from jurors who are over-educated for their present position. The college graduate who is over thirty and cleaning swimming pools may, in fact, simply be opting for a less stressful living and a way to work outdoors, but it is more likely that they’d accept something better if it came along.
The traits you target will naturally depend on the contours of your own case, but status inconsistency should be one of the important facts that you look for. Just as the United States now has the status inconsistency of being the world’s largest superpower, with a “needs improvement” credit rating, there are a number of jurors in your pool who are status inconsistent as well. If you are a defendant and you fail to catch them, you could be the one left with a downgraded feeling.
____________
Michael W. Kraus, Paul K. Piff, Dacher Keltner (2011). Social Class as Culture: The Convergence of Resources and Rank in the Social Realm Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4)
Lenski, G. (1967). Status Inconsistency and the Vote: A Four Nation Test American Sociological Review, 32(2) DOI: 10.2307/2091819