Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Mahoney, S. Littlejohn (1989)
Innovation on Trial: Punitive Damages Versus New ProductsScience, 246
Michael Rustad, T. Koenig (1993)
The Historical Continuity of Punitive Damages Awards: Reforming the Tort ReformersThe American University law review, 42
R. MacCoun (1996)
Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries : An examination of the deep-pockets hypothesisLaw & Society Review, 30
Stephan Landsman, S. Diamond, Linda Dimitropoulos, M. Saks (1998)
Be Careful What You Wish For: The Paradoxical Effects of Bifurcating Claims for Punitive Damages
Joan Schmit, S. Pritchett, Paige Fields (1988)
Punitive Damages: Punishment or Further Compensation?Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55
M. Birnbaum (1998)
Measurement, judgment, and decision making
R. Tourangeau, K. Rasinski (1988)
Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude MeasurementPsychological Bulletin, 103
D. D. Ellis (1989)
Punitive damages, due process, and the juryAlabama Law Review, 40
Ewart Thomas, M. Parpal (1987)
Liability as a function of plaintiff and defendant fault.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
J. Goodman, E. Greene, E. F. Loftus (1989)
Runaway verdicts or reasoned determinations: Mock juror strategies in awarding damagesJurimetrics Journal, 29
N. Anderson (1981)
Foundations of information integration theory
P. W. Huber (1989)
No-fault punishmentAlabama Law Review, 40
S. Daniels, Joanne Martin (1995)
Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform
J. join (1986)
A Comment on the Constitutionality of Punitive DamagesVirginia Law Review, 72
S. Diamond, Jonathan Casper (1992)
Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil JuryLaw & Society Review, 26
R. Hastie, D. Schkade, J. Payne (1998)
A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive DamagesLaw and Human Behavior, 22
J. Davis (1996)
Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model.
V. Hans (1996)
The Contested Role of the Civil Jury in Business Litigation
R. L. Blatt, R. W. Hammesfahr, L. S. Nugent (1991)
Punitive damages: A state by state guide to law and practice
M. Anderson, R. MacCoun (1999)
Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive DamagesLaw and Human Behavior, 23
J. Malouff, N. S. Schutte (1989)
Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different amounts in personal injury awardsJournal of Social Psychology, 129
D. Kahneman, D. Schkade, C. Sunstein (1998)
Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive DamagesJournal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16
R. W. Eades (1993)
Jury instructions on damages in tort actions
A. M. Polinsky (1997)
Are punitive damages really insignificant, predictable, and rational?Journal of Legal Studies, 26
D. Quayle (1994)
Standing Firm: A Vice Presidential Memoir
G. Chapman, B. Bornstein (1996)
The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury VerdictsApplied Cognitive Psychology, 10
T. Eisenberg, John Goerdt, Brian Ostrom, D. Rottman, M. Wells (1997)
The Predictability of Punitive DamagesThe Journal of Legal Studies, 26
D. Baldus, J. C. MacQueen, G. Woodworth (1995)
Improving judicial oversight of jury damages assessments: A proposal for the comparative additur/remittitur review of awards for nonpecuniary harms and punitive damagesIowa Law Review, 80
Neal Feigenson, Jaihyun Park, P. Salovey (1997)
Effect of Blameworthiness and Outcome Severity on Attributions of Responsibility and Damage Awards in Comparative Negligence CasesLaw and Human Behavior, 21
J. Turner, P. Oakes, S. Haslam, C. McGarty (1994)
Self and Collective: Cognition and Social ContextPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20
J. Malouff, N. Schutte (1989)
Shaping juror attitudes: effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trialsJournal of Social Psychology, 129
R. Hastie (1991)
Is Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire an Effective Procedure for the Selection of Impartial JuriesThe American University law review, 40
A. Polinsky, S. Shavell (1998)
Punitive Damages: An Economic AnalysisHarvard Law Review, 111
N. Vidmar, J. Lee, E. Cohen, A. Stewart (1994)
Damage awards and jurors' responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases.Behavioral sciences & the law, 12 2
R. Cooter (1982)
Economic Analysis of Punitive DamagesSouthern California Law Review, 56
N. Kerr, R. MacCoun, Geoffrey Kramer (1996)
Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups.Psychological Review, 103
J. H. Davis (1996)
Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups
D. D. Ellis (1982)
Fairness and efficiency in the law of punitive damagesSouthern California Law Review, 56
T. Eisenberg, M. Wells (1998)
Punitive Awards After BMW, a New Capping System, and the Reported Opinion Bias
L. Ross, R. E. Nisbett (1991)
The person and the situation
E. C. Snyder (1971)
Sex role differential and juror decisionsSociology and Social Research, 55
P. Diamond (1997)
Efficiency Effects of Punitive Damages
G. Priest (1996)
Punitive Damages Reform: The Case of AlabamaLouisiana Law Review, 56
A. Raitz, E. Greene, J. Goodman, E. F. Loftus (1990)
Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision makingLaw and Human Behavior, 14
M. Saks (1992)
Do We Really Know Anything About the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System-And Why NotUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140
B. Bornstein (1994)
David, Goliath, and reverend Bayes: Prior beliefs about defendants' status in personal injury casesApplied Cognitive Psychology, 8
G. Payne, R. Dingwall, J. Payne, Mick Carter (1981)
Sociology and Social Research
R. Teghtsoonian, S. Stevens, G. Stevens (1975)
Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects
V. Schwartz, Liberty Magarian (1990)
CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES: PUTTING RULES OF REASON ON AN UNBOUNDED LEGAL REMEDYAmerican Business Law Journal, 28
P. Rubin, J. Calfee, Mark Grady (1997)
BMW v Gore: Mitigating The Punitive Economics of Punitive DamagesSupreme Court Economic Review, 5
E. Moller, N. M. Pace, S. J. Carroll (1997)
Punitive damages in financial injury cases
R. Stubblefield (1966)
Behavioral sciences and the law.The American journal of orthopsychiatry, 36 5
B. J. Ostrom, D. B. Rottman, J. A. Goerdt (1996)
A step above anecdote: A profile of the civil jury in the 1990sJudicature, 79
S. Nagel, L. J. Weitzman (1972)
Sex and the unbiased juryJudicature, 56
C. Sunstein, D. Kahneman, D. Schkade (1998)
Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law)Yale Law Journal, 107
M. Galanter, D. Luban (1993)
Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal PluralismThe American University law review, 42
T. Wilson, C. Houston, Kathryn Etling, N. Brekke (1996)
A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents.Journal of experimental psychology. General, 125 4
Valerie Hans, M. Ermann (1989)
Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoingLaw and Human Behavior, 13
P. H. Rubin, J. E. Calfee, M. F. Grady (1997)
Supreme Court economic review
D. Owen (1994)
A Punitive Damages Overview: Functions, Problems and ReformVillanova law review, 39
A. Tversky, D. Kahneman (1974)
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biasesScience, 185
James Sales, Kenneth Cole (1984)
Punitive Damages: A Relic That Has Outlived Its OriginsVanderbilt Law Review, 37
D. Owen (1982)
Civil Punishment and the Public GoodSouthern California Law Review, 56
C. Sunstein, D. Kahneman, D. Schkade (1997)
Assessing Punitive Damages...
C. Cather, E. Greene, R. Durham (1996)
Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awardsLaw and Human Behavior, 20
A. Polinsky, A. Polinsky (1997)
Are Punitive Damages Really Insignificant, Predictable, and Rational? A Comment on Eisenberg et al.The Journal of Legal Studies, 26
Jane Goodman, E. Loftus, M. Miller, E. Greene (1991)
Money, Sex, and Death: Gender Bias in Wrongful Death Damage AwardsLaw & Society Review, 25
Verlin Hinsz, Kristin Indahl (1995)
Assimilation to Anchors for Damage Awards in a Mock Civil Trial1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25
J. Payne, J. Bettman, M. Luce (1998)
Behavioral Decision Research: An Overview
M. Saks, L. Hollinger, Roselle Wissler, David Evans, Allen Hart (1997)
Reducing Variability in Civil Jury AwardsLaw and Human Behavior, 21
G. Jaynes (1995)
Where the torts blossomTime, 1995, 1995
P. Huber (1988)
Liability : The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences
J. Davis, W. Au, L. Hulbert, Xiao-Ping Chen, Paul Zarnoth (1997)
Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juriesJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73
A. Raitz, E. Greene, Jane Goodman, E. Loftus (1990)
Determining damagesLaw and Human Behavior, 14
M. M. Belli (1980)
Punitive damages: Their history, their use, and their worth in present-day societyUniversity of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review, 49
Victor Schwartz, M. Behrens (1993)
Punitive Damages Reform-State Legislatures Can and Should Meet the Challenge Issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in HaslipThe American University law review, 42
M. Shanley, M. Peterson (1987)
Posttrial adjustments to jury awards
M. Peterson, Syam Sarma, M. Shanley (1987)
Punitive Damages : Empirical Findings
S. Daniels, J. Martin (1990)
Myth and reality in punitive damagesMinnesota Law Review, 75
Two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards. Jury-eligible citizens were shown a videotaped summary of an environmental damage lawsuit and told that the defendant had already paid compensatory damages. They were asked to judge liability for punitive damages and, if damages were to be assessed, to assign a dollar award. Three independent variables were manipulated in the case materials: the dollar amounts that were explicitly requested by the plaintiffs in their closing arguments to the jury, the geographical location of the defendant corporation, and the location of the lead plaintiff. Consistent with prior findings of anchor effects on judgments, we found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, the higher the awards. We also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs, while the location of the defendant company did not have reliable effects on the awards. The implications of these results for procedures in civil trials and for theories of juror decision making are discussed.
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 30, 2004
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.