Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages
Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive d...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Law and human behavior 1999-06, Vol.23 (3), p.353-373 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 373 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 353 |
| container_title | Law and human behavior |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | Robbennolt, Jennifer K Studebaker, Christina A |
| description | Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1023/A:1022312716354 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69952581</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1394358</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1394358</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a479t-8d64531eaccfc9136937ab66ec26b09cc4a677a4346282ff23d57e6c518abd8e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90EtLAzEQB_Agiq3VsyAiRcSLrM374a0UX1DwouAtZNOs3bIvk91Dv70pW9CKSA5z-P9mMgwApwjeIojJZHoXCyYIC8QJo3tgiJggCefofR8MIaIiEQSKATgKYQUhVBKyQzBAkBIlMB6Cs2lll7XPq49xXo3bpRvP6s63vq7LY3CQmSK4k20dgbeH-9fZUzJ_eXyeTeeJoUK1iVxwyghyxtrMKkS4IsKknDuLeQqVtdRwIQwllGOJswyTBROOW4akSRfSkRG47uc2vv7sXGh1mQfrisJUru6C5koxzCSK8PIXXMVdq7ibVohyKYT4F2FIEeOSbNCkR9bXIXiX6cbnpfFrjaDeHFZP9c5hY8fFdmyXlm7xw_eXjOC8B6vQ1v47J4oSJmN808emMboJa2t8m9vCBdt576pWF8tUx3_jYyTqq7_1LvsCFYCUvA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204156831</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages</title><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Robbennolt, Jennifer K ; Studebaker, Christina A</creator><contributor>Wiener, Richard L</contributor><creatorcontrib>Robbennolt, Jennifer K ; Studebaker, Christina A ; Wiener, Richard L</creatorcontrib><description>Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0147-7307</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-661X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/A:1022312716354</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10439722</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</publisher><subject>Adjudication ; Adult ; Analysis of Variance ; Awards (Jury) ; Blood Banks - economics ; Blood Banks - legislation & jurisprudence ; Compensatory damages ; Cost Control ; Defendants ; Female ; Fire damage ; Focalism ; Human ; Humans ; Juries ; Jurors ; Legal reform ; Liability, Legal - economics ; Male ; Plaintiffs ; Punishment ; Punitive damages ; Reactance ; Reward Allocation ; Settlements & damages ; Torts ; Trials ; United States</subject><ispartof>Law and human behavior, 1999-06, Vol.23 (3), p.353-373</ispartof><rights>1999 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1999 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a479t-8d64531eaccfc9136937ab66ec26b09cc4a677a4346282ff23d57e6c518abd8e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10439722$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Wiener, Richard L</contributor><creatorcontrib>Robbennolt, Jennifer K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Studebaker, Christina A</creatorcontrib><title>Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages</title><title>Law and human behavior</title><addtitle>Law Hum Behav</addtitle><description>Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.</description><subject>Adjudication</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Awards (Jury)</subject><subject>Blood Banks - economics</subject><subject>Blood Banks - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Compensatory damages</subject><subject>Cost Control</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fire damage</subject><subject>Focalism</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Jurors</subject><subject>Legal reform</subject><subject>Liability, Legal - economics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Plaintiffs</subject><subject>Punishment</subject><subject>Punitive damages</subject><subject>Reactance</subject><subject>Reward Allocation</subject><subject>Settlements & damages</subject><subject>Torts</subject><subject>Trials</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0147-7307</issn><issn>1573-661X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp90EtLAzEQB_Agiq3VsyAiRcSLrM374a0UX1DwouAtZNOs3bIvk91Dv70pW9CKSA5z-P9mMgwApwjeIojJZHoXCyYIC8QJo3tgiJggCefofR8MIaIiEQSKATgKYQUhVBKyQzBAkBIlMB6Cs2lll7XPq49xXo3bpRvP6s63vq7LY3CQmSK4k20dgbeH-9fZUzJ_eXyeTeeJoUK1iVxwyghyxtrMKkS4IsKknDuLeQqVtdRwIQwllGOJswyTBROOW4akSRfSkRG47uc2vv7sXGh1mQfrisJUru6C5koxzCSK8PIXXMVdq7ibVohyKYT4F2FIEeOSbNCkR9bXIXiX6cbnpfFrjaDeHFZP9c5hY8fFdmyXlm7xw_eXjOC8B6vQ1v47J4oSJmN808emMboJa2t8m9vCBdt576pWF8tUx3_jYyTqq7_1LvsCFYCUvA</recordid><startdate>19990601</startdate><enddate>19990601</enddate><creator>Robbennolt, Jennifer K</creator><creator>Studebaker, Christina A</creator><general>Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</general><general>American Psychological Law Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990601</creationdate><title>Anchoring in the Courtroom</title><author>Robbennolt, Jennifer K ; Studebaker, Christina A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a479t-8d64531eaccfc9136937ab66ec26b09cc4a677a4346282ff23d57e6c518abd8e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adjudication</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Awards (Jury)</topic><topic>Blood Banks - economics</topic><topic>Blood Banks - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Compensatory damages</topic><topic>Cost Control</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fire damage</topic><topic>Focalism</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Jurors</topic><topic>Legal reform</topic><topic>Liability, Legal - economics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Plaintiffs</topic><topic>Punishment</topic><topic>Punitive damages</topic><topic>Reactance</topic><topic>Reward Allocation</topic><topic>Settlements & damages</topic><topic>Torts</topic><topic>Trials</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Robbennolt, Jennifer K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Studebaker, Christina A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Robbennolt, Jennifer K</au><au>Studebaker, Christina A</au><au>Wiener, Richard L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages</atitle><jtitle>Law and human behavior</jtitle><addtitle>Law Hum Behav</addtitle><date>1999-06-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>353</spage><epage>373</epage><pages>353-373</pages><issn>0147-7307</issn><eissn>1573-661X</eissn><abstract>Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers</pub><pmid>10439722</pmid><doi>10.1023/A:1022312716354</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0147-7307 |
| ispartof | Law and human behavior, 1999-06, Vol.23 (3), p.353-373 |
| issn | 0147-7307 1573-661X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69952581 |
| source | APA PsycARTICLES; MEDLINE; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adjudication Adult Analysis of Variance Awards (Jury) Blood Banks - economics Blood Banks - legislation & jurisprudence Compensatory damages Cost Control Defendants Female Fire damage Focalism Human Humans Juries Jurors Legal reform Liability, Legal - economics Male Plaintiffs Punishment Punitive damages Reactance Reward Allocation Settlements & damages Torts Trials United States |
| title | Anchoring in the Courtroom: The Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T06%3A22%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Anchoring%20in%20the%20Courtroom:%20The%20Effects%20of%20Caps%20on%20Punitive%20Damages&rft.jtitle=Law%20and%20human%20behavior&rft.au=Robbennolt,%20Jennifer%20K&rft.date=1999-06-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=353&rft.epage=373&rft.pages=353-373&rft.issn=0147-7307&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/A:1022312716354&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1394358%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=204156831&rft_id=info:pmid/10439722&rft_jstor_id=1394358&rfr_iscdi=true |