An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Psychology-Law Society biennial meeting in Redondo Beach, California, on March 7, 1998. This research was supported by a grant from Dean Neil Cogan of the Quinnipiac University School of Law to Neal Feigenson and by the following grants to Peter Salovey: American Cancer Society (RPG-93-028-05-PBP), National Cancer Institute (R01-CA68427), National Institute of Mental Health (P01-MH/DA56826), and National Science Foundation (SBE-9058020).
The Role of Emotions in Comparative Negligence Judgments†
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 31, Issue 3, pages 576–603, March 2001
How to Cite
Feigenson, N., Park, J. and Salovey, P. (2001), The Role of Emotions in Comparative Negligence Judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 576–603. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02057.x
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
This experiment studied the role of emotional arousal in mediating the impact of plaintiff and defendant blameworthiness and accident severity on comparative negligence judgments. Participants (N= 214) read descriptions and viewed photographs of 2 accident cases varying in outcome severity, victim blameworthiness, and defendant blameworthiness. Participants then rated their emotional responses to the cases, apportioned fault between the parties, and assessed gross and discounted damages. Blameworthiness and outcome severity affected apportionment of fault, and the effects of blameworthiness and severity appeared to be mediated by the arousal of anger toward the parties. Damage awards were determined primarily by the severity of the accident and were not mediated by emotional arousal.