Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:08:55.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Money, Sex, and Death: Gender Bias in Wrongful Death Damage Awards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Jane Goodman ,
Elizabeth F. Loftus ,
Marian Miller  and
Edith Greene
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Civil damage awards in wrongful death cases and experimental data from jury simulations reveal that male decedents are typically awarded substantially higher monetary damages than are similarly situated female decedents. These differences in treatment may arise because female decedents are perceived as worth less, female survivors are perceived as more needy, and/or male decedents are perceived to have a longer lost income stream than any female decedents. Mock jurors received written summaries of wrongful death cases stipulating to the liability of the defendant. They were asked to award an appropriate sum in damages and about the factors they considered in making these awards. Male decedents received higher awards in two separate studies. While mock jurors were sensitive to the perceived needs of the surviving spouse, the disparity in awards was primarily attributable to differences in the estimated lost income of the male and female decedents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , 1991 , pp. 263 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation Law and Social Science Program (grant no. SES-8800603). Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Science Foundation. The authors are grateful to the King County (Washington) Court Administration for assistance in securing the participation of jurors at the courthouse, and to the Washington State Ferry System for assistance in gathering data from ferry commuters. Data collection and coding was accomplished with the help of Marcus Bastida, Angie Galvan, Marian Lee, Cynthia Martinez, Rodie O'Loave, and Patty Rognlin.

References

References

BERGER, R. J., P., SEARLES, and W. L., NEUMAN (1988) “The Dimensions of Rape Reform Legislation,” 22 Law & Society Review 329.Google Scholar
BODENHAUSEN, G. V. (1988) “Stereotypic Biases in Social Decision Making and Memory: Testing Process Models of Stereotype Use,” 55 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 726.Google Scholar
BROEDER, D. W. (1954) “The Functions of the Jury: Facts or Fictions?” 21 University of Chicago Law Review 386.Google Scholar
CALLAHAN-LEVY, C. M., and L. A., MESSE (1979) “Sex Differences in the Allocation of Pay,” 37 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 433.Google Scholar
CHESLER, Phyllis, and E. Jane, GOODMAN (1976) Women, Money and Power. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
CRITES, L. L., and W. L., HEPPERLE (1987) Women, the Courts, and Equality. Sage Yearbooks in Women's Policy Studies, Vol. 2. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
DEAUX, K. (1984) “From Individual Differences to Social Categories: Analysis of a Decade's Research on Gender,” 39 American Psychologist 105.Google Scholar
DEAUX, K., and B., MAJOR (1987) “Putting Gender into Context: An Interactive Model of Gender-related Behavior,” 94 Psychological Review 369.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, Shari Seidman, CASPER, Jonathan D., and Lynne, OSTERGREN (1989) “Blindfolding the Jury,” 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 247.Google Scholar
EAGLY, Alice H. (1983) “Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis,” 38 American Psychologist 971.Google Scholar
EAGLY, Alice H., and Maureen, CROWLEY (1986) “Gender and Helping Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature,” 100 Psychological Bulletin 283.Google Scholar
GOLDBERG, Philip (1968) “Are Women Prejudiced Against Women?” Transaction 28 (No. 5).Google Scholar
GOODMAN, Jane, LOFTUS, Elizabeth F., and Edith, GREENE (1990) “Matters of Money: Voir Dire in Civil Cases,” 3 Forensic Reports 303.Google Scholar
GOODMAN, J., Edith, GREENE, and Elizabeth F., LOFTUS (1989) “Runaway Verdicts or Reasoned Determinations: Mock Juror Strategies in Awarding Damages,” 29 Jurimetrics Journal 285.Google Scholar
GREENE, Edith (1989) “On Juries and Damage Awards: The Process of Decisionmaking,” 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 225.Google Scholar
HANS, Valerie, and M. David, ERMANN (1989) “Responses to Corporate Versus Individual Wrongdoing,”13 Law and Human Behavior 151.Google Scholar
HOROWITZ, Irving A., and Kenneth S., BORDENS (1990) “An Experimental Investigation of Procedural Issues in Complex Tort Trials,” 14 Law and Human Behavior 269.Google Scholar
KALVEN, Harry Jr. (1958) “The Jury, the Law, and the Personal Injury Award,” 19 Ohio State Law Journal 158.Google Scholar
KALVEN, Harry Jr. (1964) “The Dignity of the Civil Jury,” 50 Virginia Law Review 1055.Google Scholar
KAPLAN, Martin F., and Charles E., MILLER (1987) “Group Decision Making and Normative vs. Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule,” 53 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 306.Google Scholar
LEWIS, P. (1989) “Local Jurors Going Easier on Damages,” Seattle Times/Seattle Post Intelligencer, 26 March, B1–2.Google Scholar
MacCOUN, R. J. (1987) Getting Inside the Black Box: Toward a Better Understanding of Civil Jury Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
MIKULA, Gerold (1974) “Nationality, Performance, and Sex as a Determinant of Reward Allocation,” 29 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 435.Google Scholar
NAGEL, Stuart, and Lenore J., WEITZMAN (1972a) “Sex and the Unbiased Jury,” 56 Judicature 108.Google Scholar
NAGEL, Stuart, and Lenore J., WEITZMAN (1972b) “Double Standard of American Justice,” Society 18 (March).Google Scholar
PILIAVIN, Jane A., and Rhoda K., UNGER (1985) “The Helpful but Helpless Female: Myth or Reality?” in O'Leary, V. E., Unger, R., and Wallston, B. S. (eds.), Women, Gender, and Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
RAITZ, Allan, GREENE, Edith, GOODMAN, Jane, and Elizabeth F., LOFTUS (1990) “Determining Damages: The Influence of Expert Testimony on Jurors' Decision Making,” 14 Law and Human Behavior 385.Google Scholar
SCHAFRAN, Lynn Hecht (1987) “Documenting Gender Bias in the Courts: The Task Force Approach,” 70 Judicature 280.Google Scholar
SONAIKE, S. F. (1978) “The Influence of Jury Deliberation on Juror Perception of Trial, Credibility and Damage Awards,” 1978 Brigham Young Law Review 889.Google Scholar
SNYDER, Eloise C. (1971) “Sex Role Differential and Juror Decisions,” 55 Sociology and Social Research 442.Google Scholar
WARD, Dawn, and Jack, BALSWICK (1978) “Strong Men and Virtuous Women: A Content Analysis of Sex Roles Stereotypes,” 21 Pacific Sociological Review 45.Google Scholar
WASHINGTON STATE TASK FORCE ON GENDER AND JUSTICE IN THE COURTS (1989) Final Report. Olympia, WA: Office of the Administrator for the Courts.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Pancratz v. Turon, 3 Wash. App. 182, 473 P.2d 409 (1970).Google Scholar
Parrish v. Jones, 44 Wash. App. 449, 722 P.2d 878 (1986).Google Scholar
Stuart v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 6 Wash. App. 841, 496 P.2d 527 (1972).Google Scholar