Damage awards require the translation of qualitative assessments of the severity of an injury into dollar awards. Yet the qualitative-to-quantitative conversion is a challenging, understudied process. Valerie Hans describes a new “gist model” of damage award decision making, based on the core assumption that damage award judgments typically rely on the underlying meaning or gist of an injury that is translated into a corresponding dollar amount. Ms. Hans and her collaborators have conducted a number of research studies to test this model with lay participants, lawyers, and judges. They’ve used experiments to explore how our study participants move from their assessments of pain and suffering to money damage award recommendations in personal injury tort cases. Ms. Hans will report detailed findings from these experiments, which showed the power of providing anchor numbers, particularly anchors that are meaningful in the context of the case. She will also discuss how lay participants respond to attorney guidance about how to calibrate damages. Implications for trial consulting will be discussed.
Valerie Hans:Valerie Hans is Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, where she teaches torts, social science and law, and a seminar on the contemporary American jury. She is one of the nation’s leading authorities on the jury system. Author of eight books and over 150 research articles, she has carried out extensive research and lectured, consulted, and written widely about jury decision making. Recent books include The Psychology of Tort Law (coauthored with Jennifer Robbennolt) and American Juries: The Verdict (coauthored with Neil Vidmar). Her current research, funded by the National Science Foundation, tests a new theory of damage award decision making.