Search results

Findings from previous studies of individual decision‐making behavior predict that losses will loom larger than gains. It is less clear, however, if this loss aversion applies to the way in which individuals attribute value to the gains and losses of others, or if it is robust across a broad spectrum of policy and management decision contexts. Consistent with previous work, the results from a series of experiments reported here revealed that subjects exhibited loss aversion when evaluating their own financial gains and losses. The presence of loss aversion was also confirmed for the way in which individuals attribute value to the financial gains and losses of others. However, similar evaluations within social and environmental contexts did not exhibit loss aversion. In addition, research subjects expected that individuals who were unknown to them would significantly undervalue the subjects' own losses across all contexts. The implications of these findings for risk‐based policy and management are many. Specifically, they warrant caution when relying upon loss aversion to explain or predict the reaction of affected individuals to risk‐based decisions that involve moral or protected values. The findings also suggest that motivational biases may lead decisionmakers to assume that their attitudes and beliefs are common among those affected by a decision, while those affected may expect unfamiliar others to be unable to identify and act in accordance with shared values.

This Article takes up the question of "who counts?" with a three-part argument. The first part of the argument makes the case that citizenship in liberal democracies is subject to stresses caused by internal doctrinal conflict that result in the creation of semi-citizenship statuses that offer some individuals partial bundles of rights and semi-citizen statuses. Semi-citizenship is inevitable. The second part of the argument looks closely at how this affects the distribution of the political rights of citizenship: voting and representation. I make the argument that we ought not conflate voting and representation. Each is a distinct political right. People who cannot vote or do not vote are not necessarily entirely unrepresented. This is particularly evident if one takes seriously the trustee model of representation. The third part of the Article compares three different cases of semi-citizenship in which groups who are counted for the purposes of the census and legislative apportionment are not accorded the vote. I examine the cases of children, non-citizens, and felons, briefly illustrating how and why trusteeship serves the first two groups and fails the third. These conclusions bolster the case for treating trusteeship as a necessary component of a liberal democratic state and for treating it skeptically in circumstances in which the trusteeship is not clearly linked to the political capabilities of the population in question.

People who have lost a loved one often try to make some meaning of their loss. The authors explore the ways people try to make meaning of loss, the factors that predict difficulty in making meaning, and the emotional outcomes of finding meaning. They also contrast the process of finding meaning with finding some benefit in the loss, even if meaning cannot be found. Our discussion centers on a study of 205 bereaved people who were interviewed before their loss and 1, 6, 13, and 18 months after their loss. The authors draw conclusions from this work not only for bereavement theories but also for general theories of adjustment in social and personality psychology.

Compensation for loss of housekeeping capacity is one of the main heads of damages awarded for personal injury, and therefore of great practical importance to both accident victims and liability insurers. But it has received little scholarly attention from a comparative perspective. This study examines national approaches to the award of such damages and draws comparative conclusions, addressing both the concepts employed in different national systems and, through practical case studies, the quantum of compensation in individual cases

Compensation for loss of housekeeping capacity is one of the main heads of damages awarded for personal injury, and therefore of great practical importance to both accident victims and liability insurers. But it has received little scholarly attention from a comparative perspective. This study examines national approaches to the award of such damages and draws comparative conclusions, addressing both the concepts employed in different national systems and, through practical case studies, the quantum of compensation in individual cases. Ernst Karner, Institut für Europäisches Schadenersatzrecht, Wien; Ken Oliphant, Institut für Europäisches Schadenersatzrecht, Wien.