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 language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 164-174 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Law and human behavior |
Volume | 34 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Apr 2010 |
Keywords
- Anchoring and adjustment
- Civil litigation
- Juror pain and suffering awards
- Per diem arguments
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- General Psychology
- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Law