Dien Rice
October 6, 2000, 08:05 PM
Judges need to know marketing. Then the legal system could be fairer. How? Read on.
During a trial, it often happens that an attorney will introduce evidence which is shouldn't be considered by the jury. When this happens, a judge has two options.
One is to declare a mistrial, a very extreme reaction.
The other option is to direct the jury to disregard the information.
The problem with the second option is that it can have the opposite effect. A study by the University of Chicago showed it to be true.
They showed that in injury lawsuits, when evidence was introduced that the defendant was insured against the lawsuit, damages went up 13%.
But when a judge instructed the jury to disregard that evidence, damages went up 40%.
That is, the juries took the insurance information more into account when they were told to disregard it. Here's why.
It comes down to the scarcity principle which Prof. Robert Cialdini talks about in his book "Influence."
When something is "forbidden," it often introduces a greater passion for it, The unavailability makes us want it more.
I also read somewhere that among teenagers, in cases where parents forbid them to have relationships, their relationships often become more intense. Ever see Romeo and Juliet?
The added danger factor adds to the excitement. The craving for the sweet taste of forbidden fruit.
And marketers use this too, it goes without saying.... It's a very good strategy, because it works.
Now.... I know how we can improve our legal system. We just have to make judges study some marketing!
Best wishes,
Dien Rice
P.S. Hope you enjoyed the post.... Now you might want to print this out to show your lawyer!
During a trial, it often happens that an attorney will introduce evidence which is shouldn't be considered by the jury. When this happens, a judge has two options.
One is to declare a mistrial, a very extreme reaction.
The other option is to direct the jury to disregard the information.
The problem with the second option is that it can have the opposite effect. A study by the University of Chicago showed it to be true.
They showed that in injury lawsuits, when evidence was introduced that the defendant was insured against the lawsuit, damages went up 13%.
But when a judge instructed the jury to disregard that evidence, damages went up 40%.
That is, the juries took the insurance information more into account when they were told to disregard it. Here's why.
It comes down to the scarcity principle which Prof. Robert Cialdini talks about in his book "Influence."
When something is "forbidden," it often introduces a greater passion for it, The unavailability makes us want it more.
I also read somewhere that among teenagers, in cases where parents forbid them to have relationships, their relationships often become more intense. Ever see Romeo and Juliet?
The added danger factor adds to the excitement. The craving for the sweet taste of forbidden fruit.
And marketers use this too, it goes without saying.... It's a very good strategy, because it works.
Now.... I know how we can improve our legal system. We just have to make judges study some marketing!
Best wishes,
Dien Rice
P.S. Hope you enjoyed the post.... Now you might want to print this out to show your lawyer!
