The close similarity of our results

The close similarity of our results to the pattern observed in psychophysical tasks raises
two questions: (i) what is the significance of individual differences in the overall magnitude
of responses? (ii) what is the status of the average of the judgments assigned to a
given scenario (or stimulus)? In the context of psychophysics, the answers to these questions
are (i) individual differences in the size of responses reflect differences in the choice
of an arbitrary modulus; and (ii) the average responses to any single stimulus are also
largely arbitrary, although the ratios of responses to different stimuli are meaningful.
Do these conclusions also apply to the setting of punitive damages in our study? Was
the mapping from punitive intent to dollars as labile and arbitrary in our experiment as it
would be in a psychophysical experiment? In the present study, individual differences in
the overall magnitude of awards need not be completely arbitrary: they could reflect
genuine differences of opinion about the punitive effects of punitive damages, that is, in
the amount required to engage the attention of negligent firms or to inflict pain on them.
The data of the present study do not permit us to estimate how much of the variability of
dollar awards is due to such systematic effects. However, there are several reasons to
believe that arbitrary differences in individual choices of modulus play a major role. The
first is the evidence indicating the great sensitivity of punitive awards to anchors of
dubious informative value. In addition, we have seen that the mapping of punitive intent
onto dollars raises normative and conceptual problems that present a challenge to the
expert. It is likely that lay persons faced with these problems will make rather arbitrary
choices. The normative relevance of dollar damage awards is limited by the extent to
which the moduli used by jurors are arbitrary