NCJ Number
147607
Journal
Behavioral Sciences and the Law Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1994) Pages: 89-102
Date Published
1994
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This research report presents an initial attempt to apply the theory of counterfactual thinking to study the cognitive processes that underlie jurors' judgments of negligence.
Abstract
A total of 197 subjects reviewed a summary of an appellate case that involved a work accident and listed all the ways in which the accident could have been undone (mutated). Participants' evaluations of the defendant's behavior were influenced by the ease of mutation of the negligent act and other mutations of the defendant's behavior, but not by the number of mutations of the plaintiff's conduct. Exploratory path analysis suggested that counterfactual thinking may have its greatest impact as an indirect influence that impacts verdicts through lower level judgments about the normality of the defendant's behavior and the standard of care. Findings also suggest that, contrary to the law, subjects base their negligence verdicts on assessments of normal care along with due care. Further research should seek, not only to verify the role of counterfactual thinking in negligence judgments made by eligible jurors, but also to examine the role of counterfactual thinking in the judgments of other legal actors such as judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses. 4 tables, 1 figure, and 29 references