Precise Punishment: Why Precise Punitive Damage Requests Result in Higher Awards than Round Requests

Imagine a setting in which someone asks two people what the temperature is outside. The first person says it is 80, while the second person says it is 78.7. Research regarding precise versus round cognitive anchoring suggests that the second person is more likely to be believed. This is because it is human nature to assume that if someone gives a precise answer, he must have good reason for doing so. This principle remains constant in a variety of settings, including used car negotiations, eBay transactions, and estimating the field goal percentage of a basketball player.This Article reports the findings of a first-of-its-kind study designed to measure if this same principle applies to punitive damage requests from plaintiffs attorneys. In other words, can a plaintiffs attorney increase the punitive damages awarded simply by requesting $497,000 instead of $500,000. The stark differences produced from such a subtle and costless change provides a valuable strategy for plaintiffs attorneys, a cautionary warning for civil defense attorneys, and constructive insight into the subjective nature of juror decision-making.

Precise Punishment: Why Precise Punitive Damage Requests Result in Higher Awards than Round Requests Academic Article