SHARED OUTRAGE AND ERRATIC AWARDS - THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

An experimental study of punitive damage awards in personal injury cas es was conducted using jury-eligible respondents. There was substantia l consensus on judgments of the outrageousness of a defendant's action s and of the appropriate severity of punishment. Judgments of dollar a wards made by individuals and synthetic juries were much more erratic. These results are familiar characteristics of judgments made on unbou nded magnitude scales. The degree of harm suffered by the plaintiff an d the size of the firm had a pronounced effect on awards. Some judgmen tal tasks are far easier than others for juries to perform, and reform possibilities should exploit this fact.