The insured victim effect: When and why compensating harm decreases punishment recommendations

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 161-173

  van de Calseyde, Philippe P F M ^a   Keren, Gideon ^b   Zeelenberg, Marcel ^b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Insurance; Insured victim effect; Interpersonal judgment; Punishment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875728244     PISSN: 19302975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A., (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Understanding and managing competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23, 225-241.
3. Berg-Cross, L. G. (1975). Intentionality, degree of damage, and moral judgments. Child Development, 46, 970-974.
4. Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?: Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.
5. Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y., & Costa J. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a "trembling hand" game. PLoS ONE, 4, e6699.
6. Dave, D., & Kaestner, R. (2009). Health insurance and ex ante moral hazard: Evidence from Medicare. International Journal of Health Care Finance & Economics, 9, 367-390.
7. Gino, F., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments. Working paper.
8. Gino, F., Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Nameless + harmless = blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 102-115.
9. Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 324-340.
10. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247-257.
11. Hsee, C. K., Blount, S., Loewenstein, G., & Bazerman, M. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review of theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576-590.
12. Hsee, C. K., & Kunreuther, H. (2000). The affection effect in insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 141-160.
13. Hsee, C. K., &Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343-355.
14. Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35-51.
15. Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49-86.
16. Kogut, T. (2011). The role of perspective-taking and emotions in punishing identified and unidentified wrongdoers. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 1491-1499.
17. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The identifiable victim effect: An identified group, or just a single individual. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167.
18. Kohlberg, L. (1996). Stage and sequence: The cognitivedevelopmental approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
19. Landsman, S. & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 113-126.
20. Macrae, C. N. (1992). A tale of two curries: Counterfactual thinking and accident-related judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 84-87.
21. McCaffery E. J., Kahneman, D., & Spitzer, M. L. (1995). Framing the jury: Cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Review, 81, 1341-1420.
22. Miller, D. T, & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test of norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 513-519.
23. Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2003). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419-456.
24. Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 543-553.
25. Nordgren, L. F., & McDonnell, M. H. (2010). The scopeseverity paradox: Why doing more harm is judged to be less harmful. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 97-102.
26. Paharia, N., Kassam, K. S., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Dirty work, clean hands: The moral psychology of indirect agency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 134-141.
27. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
28. Rachlinski, J., Johnson, S., Wistrich, A., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does unconscious racial bias affect trail judges? Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195-1246.
29. Stanciole, A. E. (2007). Health insurance and life style choices: Identifying the ex ante moral hazard. IRISS Working Paper Series.
30. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531-573.
31. Tykocinski, O. E. (2008). Insurance, risk, and magical thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1346-1356.
32. Van Wolferen, J., Inbar, Y., & Zeelenberg, M. (2013). Magical thinking in predictions of negative events: Evidence for tempting fate but not for a protection effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 45-54.
33. Vidmar, N. (2011). The psychology of trail judging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 58-62.
34. Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type, and apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.