In civil jury trials, one of the most influential psychological tools available to a plaintiff’s attorney is anchoring—a cognitive bias that shapes how people estimate uncertain values. Anchoring occurs when individuals heavily rely on an initial number, an “anchor,” when making subsequent judgments. In the courtroom, this principle has profound implications for how jurors assess damages. In trial, the figure first suggested by the plaintiff’s attorney often becomes a mental reference point that colors the jurors’ perception of a reasonable award, even if that figure may be arbitrary or extreme.

Psychological researchers in the 1970s identified the anchoring effect. In their landmark article “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” authors Tversky & Kahneman introduced anchoring (alongside the availability and representativeness heuristics).[i] Tversky & Kahneman demonstrated that when people are exposed to an initial number—such as a random spin of a wheel—they unconsciously adjust their later estimates toward that number. In one classic demonstration, participants spun a “wheel of fortune” that landed on either 10 or 65, then were asked whether the percentage of African nations in the U.N. was higher or lower than that number, and finally participants were asked to estimate the actual percentage. Those primed with “65” gave higher median estimates than those primed with “10”.

Anchoring operates through both cognitive and emotional pathways. Cognitively, jurors use the anchor as a heuristic, which is a mental shortcut that simplifies more complex valuation tasks. Assigning a dollar figure to intangible losses such as emotional distress or loss of enjoyment is inherently subjective. A proposed amount provides a concrete reference that reduces this uncertainty. Emotionally, a large number can signal the seriousness of harm, subtly influencing jurors’ moral and empathic responses. A high anchor communicates that the suffering is profound and deserving of substantial compensation.

In the practical setting, plaintiff’s attorneys use anchoring to shape jurors’ perceptions of case value. For example, if a plaintiff’s lawyer requests $10 million in pain and suffering damages, jurors might consider that amount high but still see $5 million as reasonable. If, however, the attorney had asked for $2 million, the same jurors might view $1 million as proportionate. Empirical studies confirm this pattern: juries exposed to higher initial requests tend to award higher damages, even when the factual circumstances are identical.[ii]

Defense attorneys attempt to counter anchoring by providing competing reference points or by challenging the credibility of the plaintiff’s figure. Some may present alternative calculations grounded in expert testimony or emphasize that the requested sum is speculative and unsupported by evidence. However, psychological research suggests that the original anchor often continues to exert varying influence in the face of rebuttals, which is a phenomenon known as “anchoring persistence”.[iii]

In some jurisdictions, trial courts allow plaintiffs to suggest specific damage amounts, while others restrict or discourage the practice to prevent undue bias. Indeed, Pennsylvania is one jurisdiction that historically has not allowed the introduction of specific non-economic damages requests. However, legislative representatives in Pennsylvania have recently introduced a bill that would allow attorneys to propose a figure or sum during closing arguments while requiring the attorney to disclose the presentation to the court and the opposition before the figure or sum is presented to the jury.[iv]

Should the law pass in Pennsylvania, defense attorneys will need to fully reckon with anchoring by plaintiffs’ attorneys, because it remains a common and effective advocacy tool. Jurors are not purely objective calculators of damages. Rather, cognitive biases guide juror assessments that skilled attorneys can strategically leverage. Understanding this psychological dynamic is crucial for litigators. Tyson & Mendes, LLP remains at the forefront in educating others about necessary defense strategies at trial called “the Core Four”: Personalizing the Defendant, Accepting Responsibility, Giving a Number, and Arguing Pain and Suffering. These are effective strategies attorneys can use to rebut an anchoring bias and are critical to prevent Nuclear Verdicts®.[v]

Keep Reading

Tyson & Mendes Saves Clients $743,680,010 in 2025 Is New York Getting a Bad Faith Bill? The Apex Approach to Arguing Pain and Suffering: How to Stop Nuclear Verdicts® What I’m Thankful For as a Lawyer A Class in Class Actions: A Primer Inspired by Angelini v. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc. Artificial Intelligence: Friend or Foe? Behind the Briefs: Confronting Mental Health and Exposing the Invisible Monster Florida’s Tort Reform Era: The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts® 2025: An Industry-Changing Year

More by this author

Misclassification Under the FLSA May Expose Employers to Expanded Liability Pennsylvania Legislature Considers Law to Permit Specification, and Anchoring, of Noneconomic Damages Figures by Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in Civil Jury Trials Misclassification Under the FLSA May Expose Employers to Expanded Liability Recent Philadelphia Product Liability Suit Underscores Challenging Legal Climate for Manufacturers in Pennsylvania Collaboration Is Key to Preparation in the Weeks Before Trial Philadelphia County Continues Trend of Large Verdicts to Sympathetic Plaintiffs in Recent Medical Malpractice Litigation Pennsylvania Abuse Settlement Reinforces Importance of Background Checks in Business Operation Immunizing Against Wrongful Termination Claims: How Pennsylvania Employers Can Avoid Costly Claims by At-Will Employees Kicked Off the Team: College Football Doctor Wins Big in Wrongful Termination Case

Sources

[i] Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157. (Sep. 27, 1974), pp. 1124-1131.

[ii] See, e.g., John Campbell, Bernard Chao, Christopher Robertson & David V. Yokum, Countering the Plaintiff’s Anchor: Jury Simulations to Evaluate Damages Arguments, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 543 (2016).

[iii] See, e.g., Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H., The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6): 519-540 (1996) (Mock-jury study in personal-injury context showing that larger plaintiff demands produce higher awards, other things equal). Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., Murphy, B., & Meixner, J., Damage Anchors on Real Juries, 8 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 148 (2011) (Data from 31 real civil jury cases; shows that plaintiff’s ad damnum demand (anchor) did influence awards, but jurors were more critical when the demand was for pain and suffering than for objective economic losses). Chao, B. Saliency, Anchors & Frames: A Multicomponent Damages Experiment, 26 Michigan Technology Law Review 1 (2019) (Experiment with mock jurors in patent-damages context; shows how saliency (highlighting one component) and anchoring work together, and how the plaintiff’s high anchor persists even when exposed as irrational).

[iv] Pa. H.B. 1913, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess.

[v] Tyson, Jr., R.F. & Lynch, C.E., Nuclear Verdicts®: The Apex – Break the Pattern (2025); see also Robert F. Tyson, Jr., Nuclear Verdicts®: Defending Justice for All (Law Dog Publishing, LLC 2020).