Doctoral Dissertation Research: Going By Your Gut: The Influence of Emotion on Perceptions of Liability in Fast Food and Tobacco Litigation

摘要最近，在美国，肥胖问题再次成为公众关注的焦点。这种关注是合理的，因为仅在2000年，肥胖的估计成本就达到1170亿美元（美国卫生和人类服务部，2001年）。考虑到肥胖的高经济成本，立法和公共政策正在努力解决这个问题也就不足为奇了。国会确实通过了《联邦营养标签和教育法》，在告知消费者方面迈出了一小步，该法案要求公司在所有食品上清楚地标注营养信息。然而，立法者豁免餐馆从这一要求（高盛，2003年）。鉴于国会未能通过针对快餐行业的法规，一些原告通过提起诉讼来自己解决问题。除了补偿性损害赔偿外，许多原告还要求以营养标签要求、健康警告和为教育项目提供资金的形式对快餐行业进行监管，以警告公众吃快餐的危险（Goldman, 2003）。无论原告在法庭上是赢是输，他们都可能实现自己的目标，因为责任的威胁可能足以让快餐行业实施原告自愿要求的部分或全部措施。陪审员和公众将如何回应这场诉讼，以及他们将决定谁对肥胖的有害影响负责，这还有待观察。认知评价理论认为情绪会影响陪审员的责任感知。它假设愤怒导致人类责任归因，而悲伤导致情境归因（Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993）。这一理论对决策者决定是人为因素还是情境因素造成伤害的法律情况具有启示意义。然而，认知评价理论目前还不能预测当存在多个人类行为人时情绪如何影响责任归因。这一领域的研究很重要，因为有多种因果因素的审判往往会因情感诉求而输赢。这个项目包含两个研究，参与者将阅读一个快餐诉讼案件的审判小短文和开始和结束辩论。研究一将控制愤怒，而研究二将控制悲伤。每个研究将采用3（情感诱导类型：与案例相关、独立于案例或无情感）x3（情感目标：反被告、反原告、无目标）设计。在相关的情绪条件下，情绪会通过开庭和结案陈述来诱导。在独立情绪条件下，当参与者写下他们感到愤怒（研究2中的悲伤）的详细自传式经历时，会发生情绪诱导。对于持反原告态度的被试，愤怒会增加对原告的责任归因；对于持反被告态度的被试，愤怒会增加对被告的责任归因。悲伤会增加对情境的责任归因（对于将人类代理分配给组织的参与者来说，远离被告）。更广泛的影响：拟议的研究在两个主要方面对法律决策和社会政策有影响。首先，肥胖的经济成本影响到每个人，因此，对这些问题的情绪反应可能在立法（即对快餐行业的监管）和诉讼的发展中发挥关键作用。其次，本研究的结果可用于告知法律系统情绪对判决的潜在意外影响。此外，研究结果将在同行评议的期刊和国家会议论文集以及法律通讯中广泛传播，以使律师和法律学者了解情绪对陪审员决策的影响。

Doctoral Dissertation Research: Going By Your Gut: The Influence of Emotion on Perceptions of Liability in Fast Food LitigationABSTRACT Recently, there has been a renewed public focus on the issue of obesity in the United States. This focus is warranted as the estimated cost of obesity was $117 billion in the year 2000 alone (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Given the high economic cost of obesity, it is not surprising that legislation and public policies are striving to address the issue. Congress did take a small step toward informing consumers with the Federal Nutritional Labeling and Education Act, which required that companies clearly label nutrition information on all food. However, the legislators exempted restaurants from this requirement (Goldman, 2003). Given the failure of Congress to pass regulations addressing the fast food industry, some plaintiffs have taken the matter into their own hands by filing lawsuits. In addition to compensatory damages, many plaintiffs demand regulation of the fast food industry in the form of nutritional labeling requirements, health warnings, and funds for educational programs that warn the public of the dangers of eating fast food (Goldman, 2003). The plaintiffs may achieve their goals whether they win or lose at court because the threat of liability may be enough for the fast food industry to enact some or all of the measures the plaintiffs are demanding voluntarily. It remains to be seen how the jurors and the public will respond to this litigation and who they will decide is responsible for the harmful effects of obesity. Cognitive appraisal theory proposes that emotion will influence jurors' perceptions of responsibility. It posits that anger leads to attributions of human responsibility, while sadness leads to situational attributions (Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993). This theory has implications for legal situations in which decision-makers determine whether human or situational factors caused the harm. However, cognitive appraisal theory cannot currently predict how emotions influence liability attributions when there are multiple human agents. Research in this area is important because trials with multiple causal factors can often be won or lost on emotional appeals. This project contains two studies, in which participants will read a trial vignette and opening and closing arguments for a fast food litigation case. Study 1 will manipulate anger, while study 2 will manipulate sadness. Each study will be a 3 (type of emotion induction: related to the case, independent from the case, or no emotion) X 3 (emotion target: anti-defendant, anti-plaintiff, no target) design. In the related emotion condition, emotion will be induced through both the opening and closing arguments. In the independent emotion condition, the emotion induction will occur when participants write a detailed autobiographical experience in which they felt angry (sadness in study 2). Anger should increase responsibility attributions toward the plaintiff for participants with anti-plaintiff attitudes and toward the defendant for participants with anti-defendant attitudes. Sadness will increase responsibility attributions toward the situation (away from the defendant for participants who assign human agency to organizations). Broader Impacts: The proposed research has implications for legal decision-making and social policy in two primary ways. First, the economic costs of obesity affect everyone and as a result, emotional reactions to these issues are likely to play a key role in the development of legislation (i.e. regulations on the fast food industry) and litigation. Second, the results of this study can be used to inform the legal system of the potential unintended influence of emotion upon verdicts. Further, the outcomes of the research will be broadly disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and the proceedings of national conferences, as well as in legal newsletters to inform attorneys and legal scholars of the influence emotion has on juror decision-making.