Abstract
An experimental study of punitive damage awards in personal injury cases was conducted, using jury-eligible respondents. There was substantial consensus on judgments of the outrageousness of a defendant's actions and of the appropriate severity of punishment. Judgments of dollar awards made by individuals and synthetic juries were much more erratic. These results are familiar characteristics of judgments made on unbounded magnitude scales. The degree of harm suffered by the plaintiff and the size of the firm had a pronounced effect on awards. Some judgmental tasks are far easier than others for juries to perform, and reform possibilities should exploit this fact.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Bargh, John. A., Shelley Chaiken, Paula Raymond, Charles Hymes. (1996). “The Automatic Evaluation Effect: Unconditional Automatic Attitude Activation with a Pronunciation Task,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32, 104-128.
Bell, David, Howard Raiffa, and Amos Tversky (Eds). (1988). Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, Gretchen, and Brian Bornstein. (1996). “The More You Ask for the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, 519-540.
Davis, James H. (1996). “Group Decision Making and Quantitative Judgments:A Consensus Model.” In E. Witte and J. Davis (Eds.), Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Davis, James H., Wing Tung Au, Lorne Hulbert, Xiao-ping Chen, and Paul Zarnoth. (1997). “Effects of Group Size and Procedural Influence on Consensual Judgments of Quantity: The Example of Damage Awards and Mock Juries,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 703-718.
Diamond, Shari, and Jonathan Casper. (1992). “Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury,” Law and Society Review 26, 513-563.
Eisenberg, Theodore, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, David Rottman, and Martin Wells. (1997). “The Predictability of Punitive Damages,” Journal of Legal Studies 26, 623-662.
Galanter, Marc, and David Luban. (1993). “Poetic Justice,” American University Law Review 42, 1393-1453.
Hampton, Jean. (1993). “The Retributive Idea.” In J. Hampton and J. Murphy (Eds.), Forgiveness and Mercy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Hastie, Reid, David Schkade, and John Payne. (forthcoming). “A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages,” Law and Human Behavior.
Hastie, Reid, David Schkade, and John Payne. (1997). “Effects of Plaintiff Identity and Plaintiff's Damage Request on Juror Assessments of Punitive Damages,” Working paper.
Huber, Peter. (1989). “No-fault Punishment,” Alabama Law Review 40, 1037-1049.
Jeffries, John. (1986). “A Comment on the Constitutionality of Punitive Damages,” Virginia Law Review 72, 139-151.
Kahan, Daniel, and Martha Nussbaum. (1996). “Two Conceptions of Emotions in Criminal Law,” Columbia Law Review 96, 269-374.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Ilana Ritov. (1994). “Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5-38.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Ilana Ritov. (1998). “Preferences, Attitudes and Dollars,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, in press.
Kahneman, Daniel, Ilana Ritov, Karen Jacowitz, and P. Grant. (1993). “Stated Willingness To Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Analysis,” Psychological Science 4, 310-315.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Jack Knetsch. (1992). “Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57-70.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. (1986). “Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market,” The American Economic Review 76, 728-741.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. (1990). “An Experimental Test of the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325-48.
Kaplan, Martin, and Charles Miller. (1987). “Group Decision Making and Normative Versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 306-313.
Kerr, Norbert, Robert MacCoun, and Geoffrey Kramer. (1996). “Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups,” Psychological Review 103, 687-719.
Landes, William, and Richard Posner. (1993). Economic Analysis of Tort Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lodge, Milton. (1981). “Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions,” in J. Sullivan (Ed.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 25, Sage Publications. Beverly Hills.
Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Steve Shavell. (1997). “Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis,” Harvard Law Review.
Stevens, Stanley S. (1975). Psychophysics. Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. Wiley: NY.
Sunstein, Cass, Daniel Kahneman, and David Schkade. (1998). “Assessing Punitive Damages,” Yale Law Journal, May.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. & Sunstein, C. Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 49–86 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007710408413
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007710408413
- Punitive damages
- law and psychology
- jury decision making