Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28
Judicature, 59
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22
Federal Reserve Bulletin, 100
Cornell Law Review, 93
Yale Law Journal, 122
Family Relations, 53
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3
The Journal of Social Psychology, 142
Judicature, 56
Law and Human Behavior, 39
The Journal of the Section of Litigation, 30
Psychological Science, 11
Environment and Planning A, 5
Law and Human Behavior, 29
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 9
Psychological Science, 15
Social Problems, 50
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7
Law and Contemporary Problems, 64
Wake Forest Law Review, 28
William & Mary Law Review, 55
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 19
Harvard Law Review, 101
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36
Emory Law Journal, 53
American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17
Law and Human Behavior, 18
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it proposes a basic organizing framework for when a plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, or sex may impact civil jury awards. The framework takes into account psychological and structural sources of bias and the ways in which they may interact when jurors have more or less discretion. Second, the paper employs a methodological innovation to overcome one of the primary barriers to empirical field research on bias in civil legal decisions: the absence of plaintiff demographic information.Design/methodology/approachThe data set is comprised of jury verdicts in tort cases combined with information from the US Census Bureau regarding race and ethnicity. Statistical tests measure the relationships between race, ethnicity, sex, and awards for economic damages and pain and suffering.FindingsOverall, the results were consistent with the psycho-structural framework. Where jurors had discretion (i.e. pain and suffering damages), they awarded less to black plaintiffs than to white plaintiffs, indicating potential psychological bias. Where jurors had little discretion (i.e. lost income) they awarded less to female plaintiffs and more to Asian plaintiffs than to male and white plaintiffs, respectively, a potential reflection of structural income disparities. Thus, the framework and method have promise for exploring relationships between structural and psychological bias and differential civil jury awards.Originality/valueBecause demographic information is not easily available, there is very little research on race and gender bias in civil cases. This study introduces and provides a conceptual test of a novel framework for when bias is most likely to impact damage awards in these cases and tests it using advances in social demography that can help researchers overcome this barrier.
Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 10, 2016
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.