More than the sum of its parts? Itemizing impairment in civil cases

Gregory, Amy Hyman; Winter, Ryan J.

doi:10.1348/135532510x496204

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, it is worth asking whether participants were focusing exclusively on hedonic losses when answering our questions, rather than considering other components of noneconomic damages such as disability, disfigurement, pain, and suffering. We have no direct means of addressing this issue, though previous studies suggest that without explicit instruction, respondents might merge the components in their minds (Gregory & Winter, 2011; Poser et al, 2003). Whether and how the apparent lack of attentiveness to hedonic adaptation might affect awards for pain, suffering, and disability is unknown, though clearly stated jury instructions could inform jurors that lost enjoyment of life is wholly distinguishable from those other noneconomic losses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…To our knowledge, only two empirical studies have examined how jurors determine damages for hedonic losses. Poser, Bornstein, and McGorty (2003) showed that when mock jurors were instructed to make separate awards for hedonic loss and pain and suffering, resulting noneconomic damage awards were larger than when participants awarded a single sum for both, a finding confirmed by Gregory and Winter (2011). These results suggest that hedonic loss represents a fuzzy concept to laypeople, which makes it difficult to assess and quantify.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards.

Greene

Sturm

Evelo

2016

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In tort lawsuits, plaintiffs may seek damages for loss of enjoyment of life, so-called hedonic loss, which occurred as a result of an accident or injury. In 2 studies, we examined how people judge others' adaptation and hedonic loss after an injury. Laypeople's forecasts of hedonic loss are relevant to concerns about whether jurors appropriately compensate plaintiffs. Longitudinal data of subjective well-being (e.g., Binder & Coad, 2013) show that hedonic loss is domain-specific: Many physical impairments (e.g., strokes) inflict less hedonic loss than many persistent yet invisible ailments (e.g., mental illness and conditions that cause chronic pain). We used vignette methodology to determine whether laypeople (n = 68 community members and 65 students in Study 1; 87 community members and 93 students in Study 2) and rehabilitation professionals (n = 47 in Study 2) were aware of this fact. In Study 1, participants' ratings of hedonic loss subsequent to a physical injury and a comparably severe psychological impairment did not differ. In Study 2, ratings of short- and long-term hedonic loss stemming from paraplegia and chronic back pain showed that neither laypeople nor professionals understood that hedonic loss is domain-specific. These findings imply that observers may forecast a future for people who suffered serious physical injuries as grimmer than it is likely to be, and a future for people who experience chronic pain and psychological disorders as rosier than is likely. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards.

Greene

Sturm

Evelo

2016

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it may be important for attorneys to spend some time explaining how these perceptions should translate directly into monetary compensation (see Geistfeld, 1995) as well as considering how the presentation of this information can influence damage awards (see also research on lump sum requests as opposed to itemized requests, per diem vs. lump sums, etc. ; Gregory & Winter, 2011;McAuliff & Bornstein, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Clinical Diagnosis and Plaintiff's Award Request on Mock Juror Damage Awards and Injury Perceptions

Lecci

Martin

2018

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 250 participants read a case summary and partial transcript including the expert testimony of a neuropsychologist who evaluated the plaintiff for a suspected mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in a personal injury trial. There were three diagnostic conditions (organic injury, psychogenic reaction, or malingering) to which participants were randomly assigned, along with two requested award amounts ($10,000 or $5 million). Both pre-and postdeliberation effects emerged for the diagnosis (largest awards for the organic mTBI condition) and for the award request (larger requests resulted in larger awards), with the effect size for award request being substantially larger than the clinical diagnosis. A significant interaction also emerged, whereby the effect of the clinical diagnosis was only present when the award request was large. Thus, factors that are potentially less relevant to pain and suffering (award request) may disproportionately impact mock juror decisions in personal injury trials relative to factors that should be more salient (the expert witness's diagnosis). However, the award request had no impact on mock juror perceptions of the injury's life impact, sympathy for the plaintiff, or perceived plaintiff credibility, but the diagnosis did influence these outcomes. Implications for civil litigation in mTBI trials are discussed.

show abstract

An exploration of psychological and physical injury schemas in civil cases

Vallano

McQuiston

2018

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryCivil plaintiffs often seek compensation for their psychological injuries. Yet little is known about jurors' preconceived notions (or schemas) for a prospective plaintiff's pain and suffering. The present studies examined (a) whether jurors have psychological injury schemas (Studies 1 and 2), (b) whether their existence and development vary by the type of civil case (Studies 1 and 2) or its severity (Study 2), and (c) how psychological injury schemas compare with physical injury schemas on a number of theoretically and legally relevant judgments (e.g., injury severity, availability, and plaintiff credibility; Study 2). Study 1 (N = 233) presented undergraduate mock jurors with 2 negligence incidents (car accident and slip and fall) and 2 intentional tort incidents (sexual assault and kidnapping) and asked them to report the typical incident and injuries that would result from the defendant's conduct. Results supported the sparse existence of psychological injury schemas but found that they were more developed in the kidnapping and sexual assault incidents than in the car accident and slip and fall incidents. Study 2 (N = 288) additionally manipulated incident schema severity (mild vs. severe) while having participants separately report and rate their psychological and physical injury schemas on judgments of legal and theoretical interest. Results indicated that although mock jurors' psychological injury schemas contained fewer injuries than their physical injury schemas, the reported psychological injuries were rated as more severe than physical injuries. We discuss how schemas may underlie the disparate treatment of psychological and physical injuries by legal decision‐makers.

show abstract

More than the sum of its parts? Itemizing impairment in civil cases

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards.

Affective forecasting about hedonic loss and adaptation: Implications for damage awards.

The Impact of Clinical Diagnosis and Plaintiff's Award Request on Mock Juror Damage Awards and Injury Perceptions

An exploration of psychological and physical injury schemas in civil cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About