Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 723–730 | Cite as

Epistemological Dilemmas in the Assessment of Legal Decision Making

Article
  • 33 Downloads

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawes, R. M. (1993). Notes on the sampling of stimulus cases and the measurement of responses in research on juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 225–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Psycholegal research on jury damage awards. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgement and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hammond, K. R., Harvey, L. O., & Hastie, R. (1992). Making better use of scientific knowledge: Separating truth from justice. Psychological Science, 3(2), 80–87.Google Scholar
  7. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hastie, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). The concept of accuracy in social judgment. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 193–208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Payne, J. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hastie, R., & Viscusi, K. (1998). What juries can't do well: The jury's role as risk manager. Arizona Law Review, 40, 901–921.Google Scholar
  11. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howe, E. S., & Loftus, T. C. (1992). Integration of intention and outcome information by students and circuit court judges: Design economy and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 102–116.Google Scholar
  13. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  14. Kerr, N., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision making. Science, 244, 1046–1050.Google Scholar
  16. MacCoun, R. J. (1993). Inside the black box: What empirical research tells us about decisionmaking by civil juries. In R. E. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system (pp. 137–180), Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  17. MacCoun, R. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results, Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13, 1–55.Google Scholar
  19. Scheiner, A. H. (1991). Judicial assessment of punitive damages, the Seventh Amendment, and the politics of jury power. Columbia Law Review, 91, 142–226.Google Scholar
  20. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Vidmar, N. (1999). Juries don't make legal decisions! And other problems: A critique of Hastie et al. on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, this issue.Google Scholar
  22. Vidmar, N., & Rice, J. L. (1993). Assessments of noneconomic damage awards in medical negligence—A comparison of jurors with legal professionals. Iowa Law Review, 78, 883–911.Google Scholar
  23. Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boalt Hall School of Law and Goldman School of Public PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  2. 2.University of California at BerkeleyBerkeley

Personalised recommendations