Discussions about the impact of AI surround every facet of our work lives. Most of the creative and research platforms we use to organize trial focus groups now are offering some form of AI support. We can generate new images, ideas, and analysis at the push of a button. And now AI created mock jury panels are being offered by a few services. But do the work?
At Crantford Research we have been quick to sort through and adopt tech innovations that make our research efforts better for the client. Staying current is one of our core beliefs. This year we are expanding the use of touch screen displays in our live focus groups to bring more of a three-dimensional understanding to trial narratives we are testing. AI is of great interest but currently it is unclear how using AI as more than a source for condensing complex ideas and pulling down creative images for presentations makes sense.
There are now AI jury focus group services which claim to be able to put in a virtual space decision makers you might find in any trial venue. Creating this voice in the AI world requires the interaction between a complex set of rules that control the created juror’s behavioral characteristics and point of view. These juror “types” then digest the trial information from their programed perspectives and produce a set of questions or a decision. Interesting tool. But…
Crantford Research and Juror Decision Making
Juror decision making is a complex process. Anyone who has watched a court case unfold and spent time learning how a trial decision is made knows verdicts often emerge in a mysterious fashion. In practice the juror decision making process is rarely linear. Jury verdicts emerge from a group process that brings to bear every juror’s background experiences, emotional state, sense of social reality and feelings about the players and drama of the court room. That is a great deal of intelligence to be programed into an AI model.
We have found in moderating juror focus groups that less is more when it comes to testing reactions to case narratives. We find the best research outcomes are almost self-generated by the interplay of the panel participants. Hearing people chew on the ideas, conflicts, personalities and dynamics of an unresolved case is like looking through a window and watching a parade of strategic possibilities wash by. This fluidity is the source of the alchemy that often occurs when testing a trial story. Predicting much less programming the possible reactions to a trial story is tricky. People never fail to surprise when asked to react to stories underlying a court case. Ultimately that uncertainty is why a case ends up in front of a jury.