1E9Ct5D

Tribalism in the Courtroom:What Neuroscience Has to Say about Bias, Loyalty,and Group BehaviorAs parties in litigation and lawyers, we tend to assume, or at least hope, that the judges,jurors, and arbitrators who will decide the facts and apply the law in our cases have nottaken sides. We want them to view our disputes not as Us v. Them or Them v. Us, butas Them v. Them – as battles in which they have no interest, between tribes for whichthey harbor no enmity and may even feel some affinity. Of course, the judges, jurors,and arbitrators know they are supposed to be neutral and, with rare exceptions, willinsist that they are not for or against any of the tribes doing battle before them.Science suggests otherwise. Studies conducted by social psychologists,neuroscientists, and others over more than 50 years tell us that human beings areprogrammed to join tribes, and to protect and defend whatever tribe they have joined,regardless of evidence, logic, or good sense. If that is true – if jurors (or other decisionmakers)are aligning with a tribe, whether they know it or not – then the parties whodepend on the justice system for a fair hearing, and the attorneys who represent thoseparties, need to know how to draw the decision-makers into their tribe.Fortunately, science offers some help. Using imaging technology and other techniques,neuroscientists have been able to identify the kinds of stimuli that we – lawyers andlitigants – should and should not use when our goal is to encourage jurors and judges toalign with “Us” instead of the opposing tribe, “Them.” Some of the scientific findingsseem like common sense, while others can be difficult to comprehend, especially for2