I like courthouses. I also like libraries and art museums, but this post is about courthouses. In my career as a jury/trial consultant, I have spent countless days, hours, and minutes in courthouses, from Alaska to Florida. When I am working with attorneys during the jury selection process in trials, the courthouse and its courtrooms are my “office away from office.” Having had ample opportunity to sit on the uncomfortable benches located in most courthouse hallways while waiting for attorneys, judges, and jurors, I have often wondered why I am so comfortable in courthouses. Unlike most people I know, who

I have heard some parents extol their children’s leadership abilities while, simultaneously, praising their children for not being a follower, “like everyone else.??? This dual conception of leadership, while it may appear on the surface to be accurate, is not supported by decades of social psychological research. Most widely accepted social psychological definitions of leadership explain it in a more fluid manner, suggesting that, because most of us have been able to influence other people at one time or another, we have the potential to be leaders in some situations and followers in other situations. In fact, this conceptualization of

Leaders and leadership have been studied by social psychologists for decades. The most widely accepted definition of leader is a person who influences group activities. A leader is someone who uses social power to move others in a desired direction by getting other people to follow his/her suggestions or orders. Most people, at one time or another, have assumed leadership roles, in that they have been successful in influencing others. In order for someone to be an effective leader, he/she must be similar to the other group members, as well as be perceived by them as one of the best

Bargaining is a social psychological phenomenon that I observe in every mock jury research project I conduct. Rarely do the mock jurors reach unanimity without considerable back and forth discussions. According to social psychological theory, bargaining involves situations with the following characteristics: (1) the parties involved have divergent interests; (2) some form of communication by the parties is possible; and (3) the parties are able to make concessions. When a group of citizens is formed to comprise a jury of 6, 12, or another size, the 3 conditions listed above converge and ultimately, a verdict is reached. (Of course, when

Social psychologists often refer to the “3 Cs of Attitude Change”: conformity, consistency, and commitment. Previous posts have discussed the first two factors, conformity and consistency, and the current post will address the third factor, commitment. Commitment is the process by which people take a stand for or against a certain issue. Commitment to an attitude can be private or public, with private attitudes being more amenable to change than those expressed in a public forum. When someone is committed to a position, it usually means he/she has: made a public statement about the position; taken action consistent with the

Defensive attribution has been widely researched by social psychologists since the 1960s. Defensive attribution is the bias, present in most people, that leads to blaming a victim of misfortune for his/her role in the misfortune. Among the first research studies on the topic of defensive attribution was a study that found accident victims were perceived as more responsible for the accident when their injuries were more serious than when they were minimal. Experimenters presented the facts of an accident to research participants, varying only whether the victim’s injuries were minor or serious. Although, at the time, the results were surprising

In this series of posts, I will discuss social psychological concepts that operate in everyday life, as well as within the context of my work as a litigation/trial consultant. Some of the concepts I will cover have become well known among laypersons, that is, people who do not have an advanced degree in psychology, while others are known primarily among my colleagues. The first topic I will review is impression management. Impression management was defined in the early 1970s to explain the ways in which most people are motivated to appear consistent, reliable, and trustworthy to others. People are socialized,

Having been a student from the time I was 4 years old until I earned my Ph.D. at the age of 26, I learned how to take notes to document the important things in my life. My note taking abilities have served me well in my career. I have calendars dating back almost 40 years; if I need to know what I was doing on a particular day, it takes me mere minutes to look it up. I also write verbatim notes of conversations I have on the telephone, including with clients. My notes are dated and include a list

The older I get, the more I choose to spend time with nice people and the less time I choose to spend with mean people. My philosophy has evolved to include family members, spouses of family members, friends, spouses of friends, and clients. Even though clients, unlike the other categories of people I have listed, are paying me to spend time with them, I limit the time I spend with clients to those who conduct themselves in a professional manner, who treat my staff and me with respect, and who value my role on their trial team. I am not

Clients are people too.  I repeat, clients are people too.  This may seem obvious to the astute reader, however, there have been many occasions on which I have had to remind my staff to treat our clients like people, instead of merely treating them like clients.  Magnus’ clients are high powered attorneys, insurance adjusters, risk managers, and other executives.  Our clients are paying us handsomely to help them with the challenges they face in their high stakes litigation.  The lawsuits for which my company is retained range from multi millions to multi billions of dollars.  Often, our clients are nervous