Framing negligence

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Shoham Choshen-Hillel, Ehud Guttel, Alon Harel
{"title":"Framing negligence","authors":"Shoham Choshen-Hillel,&nbsp;Ehud Guttel,&nbsp;Alon Harel","doi":"10.1111/jels.12315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article uncovers the role of framing in the determination of negligence. Negligence disputes fall into two categories: cases in which injurers inflicted harm while seeking to avoid a <i>loss</i> to themselves (loss frame) and those in which they were seeking to obtain a personal <i>gain</i> (gain frame). We develop a theoretical framework whereby the frame of the injurer's behavior shapes negligence determinations in two ways. First, people are less likely to find an injurer negligent in a loss than in a gain frame. This is because, due to loss aversion, they find behavior more reasonable if done to avoid a loss than to obtain a gain. Second, people accord greater weight to the efficiency of the injurer's behavior in a loss frame than in a gain frame. This is because a comparison between the victim's harm and the injurer's benefit is more salient when both parties face a loss (loss frame). A series of experiments supported both hypotheses as well as the underlying mechanism. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest that they may relate to the seemingly inconsistent case law on the role of efficiency considerations in negligence cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"19 2","pages":"296-339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12315","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article uncovers the role of framing in the determination of negligence. Negligence disputes fall into two categories: cases in which injurers inflicted harm while seeking to avoid a loss to themselves (loss frame) and those in which they were seeking to obtain a personal gain (gain frame). We develop a theoretical framework whereby the frame of the injurer's behavior shapes negligence determinations in two ways. First, people are less likely to find an injurer negligent in a loss than in a gain frame. This is because, due to loss aversion, they find behavior more reasonable if done to avoid a loss than to obtain a gain. Second, people accord greater weight to the efficiency of the injurer's behavior in a loss frame than in a gain frame. This is because a comparison between the victim's harm and the injurer's benefit is more salient when both parties face a loss (loss frame). A series of experiments supported both hypotheses as well as the underlying mechanism. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest that they may relate to the seemingly inconsistent case law on the role of efficiency considerations in negligence cases.

框架的疏忽
本文揭示了框架在过失认定中的作用。过失纠纷分为两类:伤害人为避免自身损失而造成伤害的案件(损失框架)和寻求个人利益的案件(利益框架)。我们发展了一个理论框架,据此,加害人的行为框架以两种方式塑造过失判定。首先,人们不太可能在损失中发现伤害者的疏忽,而不是在获得框架中。这是因为,由于损失厌恶,他们认为避免损失的行为比获得收益的行为更合理。其次,在损失框架中,人们比在获得框架中更重视加害人行为的效率。这是因为当双方都面临损失(损失框架)时,受害者的伤害和加害人的利益之间的比较更为突出。一系列的实验支持了这两种假设以及潜在的机制。我们讨论了我们的研究结果的含义,并建议他们可能涉及似乎不一致的判例法在疏忽案件中效率考虑的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信