For over 15 years, plaintiff attorneys have used reptile tactics in depositions to gain leverage over the defense. While the techniques have evolved, the core strategy remains rooted in manipulative psychology. Though initially promoted as a jury influencing technique, defense counsel who view reptile tactics as merely a jury-focused strategy risk overlooking the real danger. Cleverly secured admissions from witnesses at deposition can inflate case valuations, increase settlement amounts, and later drive huge verdicts.
How have reptile tactics evolved?
Reptile tactics have changed from being marketed as a neuroscience-based appeal to jurors’ “survival instincts” into a structured deposition strategy. Now rebranded as The Edge, the focus is on prompting safety-rule admissions at deposition that create hypocrisy traps to promote punitive deliberation outcomes, increasing the risk of nuclear settlements and verdicts.
From Reptile Theory to Edge Strategy
Understanding the origins of reptile theory is essential. Introduced in 2009, it was marketed as a neuroscience-based strategy that appealed to jurors’ primal instincts.
Defense attorneys often misjudged it as golden-rule rhetoric, a mistake that allowed plaintiffs to secure billions in verdicts and settlements. In reality, it was a tactical system designed to exploit witness behavior under pressure. The label “reptile” was always more marketing than method.
Today, reptile theory has evolved to the “Edge” strategy, complete with university-style training and updated materials with a more precise emphasis on pretrial execution. The name might have changed, but the pressure on witnesses did not, as it is focused on building a “hit list” of admissions during the deposition.
Understanding the Plaintiff Attorney’s Goal
Plaintiff attorneys push witnesses into broad “absolute agreements,” then introduce case facts that inevitably conflict with those absolutes. The goal is for witnesses to appear inconsistent, or worse, hypocritical.
Jurors interpret that inconsistency and perceived hypocrisy as a breach of trust and community standards, rather than a mistake. When you consider the added narrative cues in the courtroom, plaintiff attorneys can leverage that to amplify jury perception and increase their motivation to “send a message”. These can lead to higher punitive damages (nuclear verdicts) when the defense is misaligned with its own safety commitments.
The Theory in Application
The psychology for reptile tactics is straightforward and repeatable. First, confirmation bias makes safety claims feel nonnegotiable, particularly in regulated industries where “safety first” has become part of professional identity. Witnesses reflexively agree with generalized safety propositions because disagreement feels like rejecting their own values.
Second, anchoring bias keeps those initial “yes” replies in place and pushes subsequent responses in the same direction (even after the question’s focus has changed to behavior that calls for judgment in certain situations).
Third, dissonance is created when the opposing lawyer presents case facts along the lines of training, documentation, paperwork, handoffs, inspections, etc., that go against the witness’s prior claims of “safety positioning”.
Finally, enter the hypocrisy trap: the direct accusation that the witness (or company) broke the very safety rules they embraced and thereby endangered others – the “gotcha.”
Why does that last step hit so hard? Reptile/Edge tactics work by framing defendants as hypocritical rule-breakers, prompting jurors to question or outright dismiss defense claims of a commitment to safety. In that context, the plaintiff attorney wants jurors to feel positioned as guardians of community safety, where holding violators of safety rules is the only ‘logical’ response.
Defense Techniques to Lower These Risks
First, stop treating this as a juror-only problem you can address at trial. The effective leverage is created at deposition. If your witnesses consistently agree to absolute safety propositions, plaintiffs will have what they need months before mediation or trial.
These vulnerabilities can’t be fixed with traditional prep, like reminding witnesses to “just tell the truth” and to “not agree with absolutes.” They require structured witness training and scientific jury research methods that are used to improve defense outcomes.
Witness Training is Necessary
Witnesses should be trained to view safety and standard of care as the result of professional judgment applied in context, rather than as an absolute standard. Repetition, practical exercises, the understanding of psychology and behavior, and the use of language that highlights specific situations and decision-making processes (without appearing vague) are all necessary. Witnesses who internalize that framework can avoid the absolutist commitments the Edge strategy requires. They can identify and reject the plaintiff attorney trap and provide accurate, honest answers that protect the defense.
Work with Psychologists and Litigation Researchers to Understand the Jury
Second, align your courtroom strategy with what actually drives juror decision-making. Anger is not the sole or even primary driver of nuclear outcomes; there are numerous factors that play a part and can only be identified via scientifically valid jury research.
Understanding the why behind juror decision-making via focus groups and mock trials helps the legal team develop arguments, themes, and narratives that position the defense case in a way that will resonate at trial. Testing voir dire, opening statements, and exhibits via focus groups prior to trial provides invaluable feedback and insights to help guide trial strategy.
Why Reptile and Edge Theories Work and How to Combat Them
Reptile tactics developed as a plaintiff strategy to drive nuclear outcomes. The technique exploits predictable human cognition, first in the witness deposition chair and later in the jury box.
The defense must treat it as a deposition engineering problem and a courtroom psychology problem, not as an abstract “brain science” debate.
Merely warning a witness about Reptile and Edge tactics is insufficient. Awareness does not neutralize witness responses to manipulative questioning; sophisticated cognitive remapping does. Litigation psychology consultants utilize witness training techniques grounded in neurocognitive science to reconstruct the witness’s default behaviors and build new habits under stress and testimony conditions.
Improve Your Defense with Courtroom Sciences
Whether it is called Reptile or Edge, the strategy endures because it works. Defense attorneys must work with psychology experts to train witnesses to make accurate, contextual decisions. Avoiding “always/never” absolutes during the deposition positions the defense more strategically for mediation and a potential trial.
Courtroom Sciences helps attorneys efficiently navigate litigation by providing psychological expertise, science-backed data, and expert support for all phases of litigation. Learn how CSI’s litigation consulting experts can improve outcomes for your next case.
Speak with one of our experts to get started.
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
