Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages
David Schkade and
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1998, vol. 16, issue 1, 49-86
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
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (44) Track citations by RSS feed
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.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:16:y:1998:i:1:p:49-86
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11166/PS2
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty is currently edited by W. Kip Viscusi
More articles in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().