Picturing pain and suffering: Effects of demonstrative evidence, instructions, and plaintiff credibility on mock jurors' damage awards

Author(s):  
Jaihyun Park ◽  
Neal R. Feigenson



2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie P. Hans ◽  
Rebecca K. Helm ◽  
Valerie Reyna

Legal systems often require the translation of qualitative assessments into quantitative judgments, yet the qualitative-to-quantitative conversion is a challenging, understudied process. We conducted an experimental test of predictions from a new theory of juror damage award decision making, examining how 154 lay people engaged in the translation process in recommending money damages for pain and suffering in a personal injury tort case. The experiment varied the presence, size, and meaningfulness of an anchor number to determine how these factors influenced monetary award judgments, perceived difficulty, and subjective meaningfulness of awards. As predicted, variability in awards was high, with awards participants considered to be “medium” (rather than “low” or “high”) having the most dispersion. The gist of awards as low, medium, or high fully mediated the relationship between perceived pain/suffering and award amount. Moreover, controlling for participants’ perceptions of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as their desire to punish and to take economic losses into account, meaningful anchors predicted unique variance in award judgments: A meaningful large anchor number drove awards up and a meaningful small anchor drove them down, whereas meaningless large and small anchors did not differ significantly. Numeracy did not predict award magnitudes or variability, but surprisingly, more numerate participants reported that it was more difficult to pick an exact figure to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering. The results support predictions of the theory about qualitative gist and meaningful anchors, and suggest that we can assist jurors to arrive at damage awards by providing meaningful numbers.



Author(s):  
Kenneth R. Laughery ◽  
Danielle L. Paige ◽  
Michael S. Wogalter ◽  
Richard N. Bean

A study addressing jury decisions regarding punitive damages awards in civil litigation was carried out. Two issues explored were the feet that jurors typically do not have a good metric for assigning a value to such damages and the concept of “leakage.” The latter concept refers to decisions regarding compensatory damages and punitive damages influencing each other; in the law they are supposed to be independent. Forty-two participants were given three scenarios describing accidents, injuries, liability outcomes, and the amounts of economic and non-economic (pain and suffering) awards. Their task was to decide on punitive damages awards. Two variables manipulated in the scenarios were the presence or absence of defendant profit information and the amount (high or low) of the pain and suffering award. Results indicated the main effects of the two variables were not statistically significant. A significant interaction between the profit-information and pain-and-suffering-amount variables indicated that when profit infonnation was available, low pain and suffering awards led to higher punitive damage awards. When profit information was not available, high pain and suffering awards led to higher punitive damage awards. The results indicate that decisions regarding compensatory and punitive damages are not independent as the law intends; an outcome that may be due, at least in part, to the uncertainty associated with these types of decisions. These findings have implications for judicial procedures, particularly jury instructions.



2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Author(s):  
Sheila Wendler

Abstract Attorneys use the term pain and suffering to indicate the subjective, intangible effects of an individual's injury, and plaintiffs may seek compensation for “pain and suffering” as part of a personal injury case although it is not usually an element of a workers’ compensation case. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, provides guidance for rating pain qualitatively or quantitatively in certain cases, but, because of the subjectivity and privateness of the patient's experience, the AMA Guides offers no quantitative approach to assessing “pain and suffering.” The AMA Guides also cautions that confounders of pain behaviors and perception of pain include beliefs, expectations, rewards, attention, and training. “Pain and suffering” is challenging for all parties to value, particularly in terms of financial damages, and using an individual's medical expenses as an indicator of “pain and suffering” simply encourages excessive diagnostic and treatment interventions. The affective component, ie, the uniqueness of this subjective experience, makes it difficult for others, including evaluators, to grasp its meaning. Experienced evaluators recognize that a myriad of factors play a role in the experience of suffering associated with pain, including its intensity and location, the individual's ability to conceptualize pain, the meaning ascribed to pain, the accompanying injury or illness, and the social understanding of suffering.



1969 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-101
Author(s):  
RICHARD A. STERNBACH
Keyword(s):  


PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Scott
Keyword(s):  


1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. T. Boccaccini ◽  
S. L. Brodsky
Keyword(s):  


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarika Daftary ◽  
Melissa A. Berry Cahoon


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Kimbrough ◽  
Brian Bornstein ◽  
Bradley D. McAuliff


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tess M. S. Neal ◽  
Desiree Adams Griffin ◽  
Stanley L. Brodsky


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document