A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision-making in split recovery cases

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 358-375

  Fox, Paul ^a   Wingrove, Twila ^a   Pfeifer, Courtney ^b  

^a APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MIDDLE AGED; STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MIDDLE AGED; STUDENTS;

EID: 79960441854     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.968     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anderson, M. C., & MacCoun, R. J.(1999). Goal conflict in juror assessment of compensatory and punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 313-30.
2. Bornstein, B. H.(1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Bornstein, B. H., Robicheaux, T. R., & Thimsen, S.(2009). Punitive damages: a vehicle for punishment in civil case. In M. E. Oswald, S. Bienecak, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime (pp.193-210. 0). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L.(1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
5. Bray, R. M. Kerr N. L. (Eds.), (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York:Academic Press.
6. Breau, D., & Brook, B.(2007).'Mock' mock juries: A field experiment on the ecological validity of jury simulations. Law & Psychology Review, 3, 177-92.
7. Diamond, S. S.(1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
8. Diamond, S. S., Saks, M. J., & Landsman, S.(1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review, 48, 301-326.
9. Garrity, K. R.(2006). Whose award is it anyway?: Implications of awarding the entire sum of punitive damages to the state. Washburn Law Journal, 45, 395-414.
10. Greene, E., Coon, D., & Bornstein, B.(2001). The effects of limiting punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 217-234.
11. Limitation of Amount of Recovery.N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1D-25 (West(2009).).
12. Lockhart v McCree. 476 U.S. 162 ((1986).).
13. McCabe, J. G., & Krauss, D. A.(2011). The Effect of Acknowledging Mock Jurors' Feelings on Affective and Cognitive Biases: It Depends on the Sample. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 331-357. DOI:10.1002/bsl.990.
14. Morgan, M. L.(2004). The effect of caps on punitive damage awards (Unpublished senior honors thesis.), Appalachian State University. Boone, N. C.
15. Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A.(1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353-373.
16. 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.
17. Schwartz, V. E., Behrens, M. A., & Silverman, C.(2003).I'll take that: Legal and public policy problems raised by statutes that require punitive damages awards to be shared with the state. Missouri Law Review, 68, 525-558.
18. Studebaker, C. A., Robbennolt, J. K., Penrod, S. D., Pathak-Sharma, M. K., Groscup, J. L., & Devenport, J. L.(2002). Studying pretrial publicity effects: New methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 19-40.
19. Sunstein, C., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D.(1998). Assessing punitive damages (with notes on cognition and valuation in law). The Yale Law Journal, 7, 2071-2153.
20. Viscusi, W., & Born, P.(1995). Medical malpractice insurance in the wake of liability reform. The Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 463-490.