The Gist of Juries: Testing a Model of Damage Award Decision Making.

The Gist of Juries: Testing a Model of Damage Award Decision Making.
复制标题

陪审团要点:测试损害赔偿决策模型。

DOI:
10.1037/law0000048
复制
发表时间:
2015
期刊:
Psychology, public policy, and law : an official law review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Royer,Caisa
Royer,Caisa
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Reyna,ValerieF;Hans,ValerieP;Corbin,JonathanC;Yeh,Ryan;Lin,Kelvin;Royer,Caisa

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

尽管损害赔偿金很重要,但陪审团常常对应判给的金额感到困惑,对于看似具有可比性的案件,其赔偿金差异很大。我们通过系统地改变数值比较或锚点的大小、背景和意义来测试损害赔偿决策的新模型。结果,我们能够得出两个不同案例中重复的赔偿金额的巨大差异。尽管任意的金额(与案件无关)都会影响裁决的大小,但当金额有意义,因为它们传达了数字大小的要点时,数字锚的最一致的效果就会实现。与该模型一致,原告损害的严重程度和被告的责任的顺序要点预测了损害赔偿,并控制了裁决判决任务的动机和感知的经济损失等其他因素。与传统的双过程方法相反,计算能力和认知风格(例如,认知需求和认知反思)并不是这些数字判断的显着预测因素,但一旦考虑到判断的要点,它们就与较低水平的变异性相关。讨论了对理论和政策的影响。(PsycINFO 数据库记录 (c) 2016 APA,保留所有权利)
Despite the importance of damage awards, juries are often at sea about the amounts that should be awarded, with widely differing awards for cases that seem comparable. We tested a new model of damage award decision making by systematically varying the size, context, and meaningfulness of numerical comparisons or anchors. As a result, we were able to elicit large differences in award amounts that replicated for 2 different cases. Although even arbitrary dollar amounts (unrelated to the cases) influenced the size of award judgments, the most consistent effects of numerical anchors were achieved when the amounts were meaningful in the sense that they conveyed the gist of numbers as small or large. Consistent with the model, the ordinal gist of the severity of plaintiff’s damages and defendant’s liability predicted damage awards, controlling for other factors such as motivation for the award-judgment task and perceived economic damages. Contrary to traditional dual-process approaches, numeracy and cognitive style (eg, need for cognition and cognitive reflection) were not significant predictors of these numerical judgments, but they were associated with lower levels of variability once the gist of the judgments was taken into account. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)