All anchors are not created equal: The effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards

Bradley D. McAuliff, Brian H. Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

This experiment examined whether different quantifications of the same damage award request ($175,000 lump sum, $10/hour, $240/day, $7300/month for 2 years) influenced pain and suffering awards compared to no damage award request. Jury-eligible community members (N = 180) read a simulated personal injury case in which defendant liability already had been determined. Awards were: (1) larger for the $10/hour and $175,000 conditions than the $7300/month and control conditions and (2) more variable for the $10/hour condition than the $7300/month and control conditions. No differences emerged on ratings of the parties, their attorneys, or the difficulty of picking a compensation figure. We discuss the theoretical implications of our data for the anchoring and adjustment literature and the practical implications for legal professionals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)164-174
Number of pages11
JournalLaw and human behavior
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Keywords

  • Anchoring and adjustment
  • Civil litigation
  • Juror pain and suffering awards
  • Per diem arguments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'All anchors are not created equal: The effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this