Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages

Daniel Kahneman, David Schkade and Cass R Sunstein

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1998, vol. 16, issue 1, pages 49-86

Abstract: An experimental study of punitive damage awards in personal injury cases was conducted, using jury-eligible respondents. There was substantial consensus on judgments of the outrageousness of a defendant's actions and of the appropriate severity of punishment. Judgments of dollar awards made by individuals and synthetic juries were much more erratic. These results are familiar characteristics of judgments made on unbounded magnitude scales. The degree of harm suffered by the plaintiff and the size of the firm had a pronounced effect on awards. Some judgmental tasks are far easier than others for juries to perform, and reform possibilities should exploit this fact. Copyright 1998 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 1998
View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:16:y:1998:i:1:p:49-86

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty is edited by W. Kip Viscusi

More articles in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty from Springer
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().