I am fascinated by polls. Part of it is because I work with public opinion at a very intimate level as I observe groups of twelve making decisions. I carefully evaluate the beliefs, assumptions, decision strategies, and conclusions of well over 1000 jurors every year.  Partly, polls give me insight into attitudinal trends and social movements.  And part of it is because it fascinates me to see how slowly what we say are our beliefs change and yet how fast our behaviors and biases change as major events befall us.

What we say drives our behavior (our moral code, our religious beliefs, and other higher plane values) simply does not drive our behavior at all. We’ve written about this phenomenon before when we looked at Americans core values and at racial bias as exemplified by the vitriolic comments on a seemingly innocent style piece on First Lady Michelle Obama.

Yet the polls are [still] out there. And the pollsters say they statistically reflect all of us. Even though increasing numbers of us either don’t have or don’t answer our home phones unless we know who is calling. So here is what reflects “us” recently.

Trump Most Visible Among Possible GOP Contenders

Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights

Budget Negotiations in a Word – “Ridiculous”

Majorities of Americans Support Legalizing Medical Marijuana In Their State

Most Previous Obama Voters likely to Vote for Him in 2012 but 17% say they are unlikely to vote for Obama again

Civil War at 150: Still Relevant, Still Divisive

Statistically, pollsters would predict these headlines are likely to reflect my sentiments. They would be wrong. Some do, some don’t. I know this. And I know it’s true of our mock and actual jurors as well. So why do I continue to love to read polls and emerging social sciences research?

Because it’s the best shot we have at keeping a finger on the pulse of our society. There seems to be a trend toward more ‘meanness’ these days. I want to understand why that is and from which direction it comes. Just how powerful are first impressions? And for whom? I need to know. Are young people today really more negative and narcissistic or is the issue that many attorneys are getting older? How pervasive (and how persuasive) are beliefs from watching CSI-type TV shows about the sort of high-tech evidence that will be presented in court? If I fall short, will I lose the case? And if I take fish oil capsules is it really true that I can smoke pot and avoid psychosis?

We have to sift through the results of research and polls to find out what is really sound and reliable information. We used to use polling questions on our background questionnaires to assess mock juror attitudes. We figured since we ‘knew’ they found measureable differences they would do the same with our mock jurors. We don’t do that anymore. Because it doesn’t work. For the most part, the questions are too ‘macro’ to really apply to the ‘micro’ facts of our cases. But we still track them and follow new research findings.

Ultimately, you have to know your audience.  If you understand a little bit more than your opponent about what your jurors care about, what causes worry, and what provides comfort, you have an edge.  When you are dealing with groups of twelve, any edge you can get on understanding human behavior and decision-making as it relates to your specific case is terrifically important. And sometimes it is like striking gold.

Related posts:

1. Immigration Polls and Lying College Grads and Liberals
2. Seeing and Believing and Reducing Prejudice
3. Arkansas: If a judge calls you a ‘slut’ in open court, it doesn’t show prejudice
4. Derogating do-gooders [like vegetarians] is how I roll
5. “All university faculty members are liberals”