The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham ("pain and suffering") in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.Despite profound controversy about many aspects of damages in tort litigation, systematic empirical knowledge about the nature of damages decision making is seriously limited. The present studies investigate how people make awards of damages for non-economic harm in personal injury cases-that is, awards to compensate accident victims for their pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. We begin by reviewing the legal rules that define and govern such damages and the empirical research relevant to how people make decisions about pain and suffering awards. The Law of Compensatory Damages for Non-Economic HarmThe purpose of compensatory damages is to restore victims of tortious injury to the position they were in before the injury, at least to the extent that monetary damages can do so (Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1979, § 901). Compensatory damages consist of awards for both economic losses (largely medical expenses and

No abstract

These studies examined the effects of anchors in the context of personal injury damages awards. In 2 experiments, mock jurors read a case in which the presence and size of the plaintiff's damages request and the defense rebuttal were varied across conditions and then awarded damages. Award size and variability increased as the plaintiff's request increased but decreased with the most extreme request. Conversely, award size and variability decreased as the defense rebuttal decreased but increased with the most extreme rebuttal. In both studies, the award recommendations altered the upper and lower boundaries of awards mock jurors found acceptable but did not affect mock jurors' perception of injury severity. The findings suggest that award recommendations can produce biased and unpredictable awards.

The rationale for allowing into evidence a defendant's criminal record asserts that such evidence can be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a ddfendant witness's credibility and, in accord with .judges' instructions, will not be used to assess likelihood of guilt. The effect that the defendant's prior record has on mock jurors' assessments of credibility and guilt was tested in a two (cases) x four (type of prior conviction) factorial design. Adults' ratings of the defendant's credibility did not vary as a function of prior record and were consistently the lowest of the credibility ratings of ait witnesses. Conviction rates did vary by prior record, however, with the highest conviction rate occurring when the prior conviction was the same as the present charge and the towest conviction rate occurring in the no-prior-conviction condition. Defendants with a previous conviction for perjury or a dissimilar crime were convicted at an intermediate rate. We cor~cluded that the risk of prejudice to the defense under existing policy is greater than the unrealized potential benefit to the prosecution.

No abstract