English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Justice is in the Eyes of the Beholder – Eye Tracking Evidence on Balancing Normative Concerns in Torts Cases

Engel, C., & Rahal, R.-M. (2020). Justice is in the Eyes of the Beholder – Eye Tracking Evidence on Balancing Normative Concerns in Torts Cases.

Item is

Basic

show hide
Item Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0005-8E7E-F Version Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0006-EBC1-7
Genre: Paper

Files

show Files

Locators

show
hide
Description:
-

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Engel, Christoph1, Author              
Rahal, Rima-Maria1, Author              
Affiliations:
1Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Max Planck Society, ou_2173688              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: torts, fundamental normative relativity, compensation, deterrence, utilitarian and deontological concerns, balancing, eye tracking, machine learning
 JEL: D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
 JEL: D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
 JEL: D91 - Intertemporal Household Choice; Life Cycle Models and Saving
 JEL: K13 - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
 JEL: K40 - General
 Abstract: Frequently deciding legal cases requires an assessment in multiple, conceptually incompatible dimensions. Often one normative concern would call for one decision, and another normative concern for a different decision. The decision-maker must engage in balancing, with no help from overarching normative theory. A typical situation is torts. The decision must regularly balance concerns on behalf of the victim, the tort feasor and society at large, both on utilitarian and deontological grounds. In this paper we use eye tracking to investigate in which ways laypersons' thought processes react to normative conflict in a set of 16 torts vignettes. If normative conflict is present, participants are less likely to agree with the likely outcome if the case were tried in a German court; they take longer to decide, and they fixate longer on normative concerns presented on a decision screen. Eye movements show that participants indeed consider multiple normative concerns in competition.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2020-01-27
 Publication Status: Published online
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: Bonn : Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Discussion Paper 2020/3
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: Other: 2020/3
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source

show