Predictably Incoherent Judgments

Sunstein, Cass R.; Kahneman, Daniel; Schkade, David; Ritov, Ilana

doi:10.2307/1229618

Cited by 88 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, the ''price'' that needs to be justified in the present experiment is not money, but the loss of two lives. Thus, participants were not asked to equate what might be considered incommensurable goods (money and lives), a possible source of performance error (Sunstein et al, 2002).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Principles or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem

Tage

Holyoak

2010

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We created paired moral dilemmas with minimal contrasts in wording, a research strategy that has been advocated as a way to empirically establish principles operative in a domain-specific moral psychology. However, the candidate ''principles'' we tested were not derived from work in moral philosophy, but rather from work in the areas of consumer choice and risk perception. Participants were paradoxically less likely to choose an action that sacrifices one life to save others when they were asked to provide more reasons for doing so (Experiment 1), and their willingness to sacrifice lives depended not only on how many lives would be saved, but on the number of lives at risk (Experiment 2). The latter effect was also found in a within-subjects design (Experiment 3). These findings suggest caution in the use of artificial dilemmas as a key testbed for revealing principled bases for moral judgment.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Principles or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem

Tage

Holyoak

2010

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…975-76, 987-88;Huber 1989Huber , p. 1037Jeffries 1986;Wheeler 1989, pp. 940-41), and an Exxon-funded research program on punitive damages reinforced the view that punitive damages awards were too unpredictable (Hastie and Viscusi 1998, p. 916;Kahneman 2000, p. 1173;Schkade 1998, p. 2078;Sunstein et al 2002). 7 Beginning in the 1990s, however, virtually every empirical study of court-based punitive damages has revealed a strong, statistically significant correlation between punitive and compensatory damages (Eisenberg et al 1997(Eisenberg et al , 2002(Eisenberg et al , 2006Eisenberg andWells 1998, 1999;Karpoff and Lott 1999, p. 543;Moller, Pace, and Carroll 1999, p. 300;Schlanger 2003Schlanger , p. 1605Sharkey 2006).…”

Section: Prior Empirical Literature On Punitive Damages and Securitiementioning

confidence: 99%

Punitive Damages in Securities Arbitration: An Empirical Study

Choi¹,

Eisenberg²

2010

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides the first empirical analysis of punitive damages in securities arbitrations.Using a data set of over 6,800 securities arbitration awards, we find that claimants prevailed in 48.9 percent of arbitrations and that 9.1 percent of those claimant victories included a punitive damages award. The existence of a punitive damages award was associated with claims that suggested egregious misbehavior and with claims that provided higher compensatory awards. The pattern of punitive awards is more consistent with a traditional view of punitive damages that incorporates a retributive component than with a law and economics emphasis on efficient deterrence. We also report evidence that the relation between punitive and compensatory awards did not differ substantially between the securities arbitrators' data and data on juries available from periodic Civil Justice Surveys by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

show abstract

“…This is in the spirit of metaanalysis. Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein noted that anchoring effects have been found also for works of art, housing prices and judicial compensation decisions (Beggs and Graddy, 2009;Simonsohn and Loewenstein, 2006;Sunstein et al, 2002). These results are of independent importance, and they concern highly complex goods, for which standard utility theory might arguably not have high explanatory power.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%