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

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 164-174

  McAuliff, Bradley D ^a   Bornstein, Brian H ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CIVIL RIGHTS; COMPENSATION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INJURY; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL STRESS; PAIN; PILOT STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; ADOLESCENT; CIVIL RIGHTS; COMPENSATION AND REDRESS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PAIN; PILOT PROJECTS; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 77954458897     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-009-9178-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Abbinante v. O-Connell, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1046
2. N. E. 2d 126 (1996).
3. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3.
4. Beagle v. Vasold, 65 Cal.2d 166
5. P.2d 673 (1966).
6. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. doi:10.1023/A: 1022326807441. (Pubitemid 29138300)
7. Cafferty v. Monson, 360 N. W.2d 414 (Minn. App. 1985).
8. Carchidi v. Rodenhiser, 209 Conn. 526, 551
9. A. 2d 1249 (1989).
10. Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519-540. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID- ACP417>3.0. CO;2-5.
11. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960070402.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
14. Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2000). Previous little guidance: Jury instruction on damage awards. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 743-768. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743.
15. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Hinsz, V. B., & Indahl, K. E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 991-1026. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02 386.x.
17. Johnson v. Colglazier, 348 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1965).
18. King, J. H. (2003). Counting angels and weighing anchors: Per diem arguments for noneconomic personal injury tort damages. Tennessee Law Review, 71, 1-50.
19. Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-99. doi:10.1007/BF01056165. (Pubitemid 19099173)
20. Laughery, K. R., Paige, D., Bean, R. N., & Wogalter, M. S. (2001). Pain and suffering awards for consumer product accidents: Effects of suggesting day-rate information. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 843-847).
21. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278-292). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22. Malouff, J., & Schutte, N. S. (1989). Shaping juror attitudes: Effects of requesting different damage amounts in personal injury trials. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 491-497.
23. Markovsky, B. (1988). Anchoring justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 213-224. doi:10.2307/2786920.
24. Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 91-103. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.91.
25. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
26. Parker v. Artery, 889 P.2d 520 (1995, Wyo).
27. Pearson, J. O. (2002). Per diem or similar mathematical basis for fixing damages for pain and suffering. American Law Reports: Cases and Annotations, 3, 940-986.
28. Ramstad v. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., 836 F. Supp. 1511 (1993, DC Minn).
29. Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 243-256. doi:10.1023/A:1024834614312. (Pubitemid 27264303)
30. Streeter v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 533 So.2d 54 (La. App. 1988) cert.
31. denied, 536 So.2d 1255 (La. 1989).
32. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157. 1124.
34. Wissler, R. L., Kuehn, P., & Saks, M. J. (2000). Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 712-742. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.712.