Date of Award

6-12-2006

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Douglas P. Peters

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of two popular tort reform measures---punitive damage caps, and laws that remit punitive awards to the state---on mock jurors' damage awards. College students read a mock trial scenario in which the plaintiff contracted HIV from blood supplied by the defendant company. Participants then provided award amounts for both compensatory and punitive damages. Two variables were manipulated: the punitive damage cap ($50,000, $300,000, $5 million, No-Cap, or No-Punitives), and the recipient of the punitive award (Plaintiff or State Treasury). Participants' punitive awards varied directly with cap amount, including an upward-anchoring effect for the $5 million cap group, which issued higher awards than the No-Cap control group. Compensatory damage awards also exhibited an anchoring effect. Specifically, participants in the $50,000 cap group issued significantly lower compensatory awards than participants in the $5 million cap group. Under legal rules, compensatory awards should have been the same for all groups because the plaintiff's injury was the same. These findings suggest that punitive damage caps may produce unintended effects in two ways. A high cap may produce an upward-anchoring effect, leading to higher awards than no cap at all. And punitive damage caps may affect compensatory damage awards, violating the legal principle that the two categories of damages are to serve separate purposes and be based on separate evidentiary factors. Contrary to prior research findings, participants did not augment their compensatory awards when prohibited from awarding punitive damages. Participants endorsed both appropriate and inappropriate purposes for each award, indicating that participants were not very sensitive to the instructed distinctions between damage categories. Compared with a No-Cap control condition, all cap levels reduced the variability of awards, supporting the theory that caps lead to more predictable awards. The recipient variable had no effect on damage awards, suggesting that split-recovery statutes would not systematically affect awards in actual trials. In a single-group study of jury deliberation, participants issued postdeliberation group awards that were higher than their predeliberation individual awards. Additional research should focus on the effects of deliberation, as well as the responses of a more diverse population.

Download

Share

COinS