Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know

Vallano, Jonathan P.

doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9153-z

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, perceived harm can shape judgments of credibility—victims who are perceived as more distressed are also perceived as more credible (Klippenstine & Schuller, 2012; Nitschke et al, 2019; Schuller et al, 2010). Perceived harm further plays an important role in punitive and legal judgments, such as shaping the level of punishment assigned to the perpetrator, as well as other judgments like the amount of compensation awarded to victims (EEOC, 2017; Vallano, 2013; van Doorn & Koster, 2019). In the present work, we investigate whether perceptions of sexual harassment—linking potentially harassing behavior to gender-based group membership and perceiving harassment as credible and harmful—are influenced by the prototypicality of targets of sexual harassment.…”

Section: Perceptions Of Sexual Harassmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Doubting the veracity of sexual harassment claims poses an enormous barrier to victims’ ability to receive protection and justice (Epstein & Goodman, 2018; Tuerkheimer, 2017). Indeed, in legal and punitive contexts involving sexual harassment, perceptions of the victim’s credibility and the level of psychological harm experienced typically increase the likelihood that the allegation is taken seriously, and that verdicts, liability, and damage determinations favor the victim (Epstein & Goodman, 2018; Vallano, 2013). In the next series, we examined whether the association between sexual harassment and prototypical women also disadvantages nonprototypical women when they make sexual harassment claims by biasing perceptions of the credibility of their claims.…”

Section: Study Series B: Prototypicality and Identifying Sexual Haras...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment.

Goh¹,

Bandt-Law²,

Cheek³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual harassment is pervasive and has adverse effects on its victims, yet perceiving sexual harassment is wrought with ambiguity, making harassment difficult to identify and understand. Eleven preregistered, multimethod experiments (total N = 4,065 participants) investigated the nature of perceiving sexual harassment by testing whether perceptions of sexual harassment and its impact are facilitated when harassing behaviors target those who fit with the prototype of women (e.g., those who have feminine features, interests, and characteristics) relative to those who fit less well with this prototype. Studies A1–A5 demonstrate that participants’ mental representation of sexual harassment targets overlapped with the prototypes of women as assessed through participant-generated drawings, face selection tasks, reverse correlation, and self-report measures. In Studies B1–B4, participants were less likely to label incidents as sexual harassment when they targeted nonprototypical women compared with prototypical women. In Studies C1 and C2, participants perceived sexual harassment claims to be less credible and the harassment itself to be less psychologically harmful when the victims were nonprototypical women rather than prototypical women. This research offers theoretical and methodological advances to the study of sexual harassment through social cognition and prototypicality perspectives, and it has implications for harassment reporting and litigation as well as the realization of fundamental civil rights. For materials, data, and preregistrations of all studies, see https://osf.io/xehu9/.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of Sexual Harassmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Series B: Prototypicality and Identifying Sexual Haras...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment.

Goh¹,

Bandt-Law²,

Cheek³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In short, this study has revealed sensitivity within regions implicated in theory of mind to the physical/psychological dimension of harm, a finding that contributes to our growing understanding of social and moral judgment. This line of work has implications for the law as well: While tort law recognizes both physical and psychological harm, the legal system typically devalues psychological harm in relation to physical harm ( Bornstein & Schwartz, 2009 ; Vallano, 2013 ). More research in this area may help highlight and address discrepancies between how the legal system and how people (potential jurors) treat and differentiate between psychological harm and physical harm ( Eggen & Laury, 2011 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural substrates for moral judgments of psychological versus physical harm

Tsoi

Dungan

Chakroff³

et al. 2018

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While we may think about harm as primarily being about physical injury, harm can also take the form of negative psychological impact. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examined the extent to which moral judgments of physical and psychological harms are processed similarly, focusing on brain regions implicated in mental state reasoning or theory of mind, a key cognitive process for moral judgment. First, univariate analyses reveal item-specific features that lead to greater recruitment of theory of mind regions for psychological harm versus physical harm. Second, multivariate pattern analyses reveal sensitivity to the psychological/physical distinction in two regions implicated in theory of mind: the right temporoparietal junction and the precuneus. Third, we find no reliable differences between neurotypical adults and adults with autism spectrum disorder with regard to neural activity related to theory of mind during moral evaluations of psychological and physical harm. Altogether, these results reveal neural sensitivity to the distinction between psychological harm and physical harm.

show abstract

“…Regardless of their beliefs about hedonic adaptation, people may simply devalue psychological injuries and underestimate their impact on subjective well-being and functioning over time. Indeed, judges and jurors alike question the legitimacy of psychological injuries because of erroneous beliefs about their causes and consequences (Vallano, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We examine how they rate hedonic loss subsequent to a visible physical injury and a comparably severe but largely invisible psychological injury. Obviously, it is difficult to find physical and psychological injuries of comparable severity, given the subjective nature of this perception (Vallano, 2013) and the fact that physical injuries can have psychological sequelae and vice versa. Thus, we used scenarios developed by Andrews (1993) and employed by Andrews, Meyer, and Berlá (1996) to ascertain mental health professionals’ ratings of the lost enjoyment of life experienced by people suffering from various injuries.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know

Cited by 11 publications

References 54 publications

Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment.

Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment.

Neural substrates for moral judgments of psychological versus physical harm

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About