Robbennolt J K, Studebaker C A
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 1999 Jun;23(3):353-73. doi: 10.1023/a:1022312716354.
Responding to the perception that civil damage awards are out of control, courts and legislatures have pursued tort reform efforts largely aimed at reigning in damage awards by juries. One proposed method for reigning in civil juries is to limit, or cap, the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. Despite significant controversy over damage awards and the civil litigation system, there has been little research focusing on the process by which juries determine damages. In particular, there is a paucity of research on the possible effects of placing caps on punitive damages. The present research examines punitive damage caps and reveals an anchoring effect of the caps on both compensatory and punitive damages. A second experiment replicates this effect and examines the moderating effect of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damage decisions.
鉴于人们认为民事损害赔偿裁决失控,法院和立法机构纷纷展开侵权法改革,主要目的是限制陪审团的损害赔偿裁决。一种提议的限制民事陪审团的方法是限制或设定惩罚性损害赔偿的最高金额。尽管在损害赔偿裁决和民事诉讼制度方面存在重大争议,但很少有研究关注陪审团确定损害赔偿的过程。特别是,关于对惩罚性损害赔偿设定上限可能产生的影响的研究很少。本研究考察了惩罚性损害赔偿上限,并揭示了上限对补偿性和惩罚性损害赔偿的锚定效应。第二项实验重复了这一效应,并考察了将补偿性和惩罚性损害赔偿决定分开的调节效应。