Threshold point utilisation in juror decision-making.
courtroom
cue utilisation
decision-making
heuristics
information integration
jurors
law
not proven verdict
psychology
stopping rule
Journal
Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
ISSN: 1321-8719
Titre abrégé: Psychiatr Psychol Law
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9433511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
28
1
2020
pubmed:
28
1
2020
medline:
28
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aims to identify whether a model of juror decision-making (i.e. the threshold point model) that encompasses both rational and intuitive decision-making exists. A total of 60 participants were selected who are eligible for jury duty in Scotland. These individuals read nine vignettes and rated the evidence of each vignette separately by placing the evidence in either a guilty, a not guilty or a not proven (a verdict type specific to Scotland) counter. Participants were asked after being presented with each piece of information to state how likely they thought the suspect was of being guilty, on a scale from 1 to 100. The data are best described using a flexible model (i.e. a diffusion model) that allows for information integration. Future research should examine whether or not the diffusion model can explain cognitive fallacies, such as confirmation bias, that are commonly studied in decision science.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31984068
doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1485520
pii: 1485520
pmc: PMC6762123
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
110-128Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Lee J. Curley has declared no conflicts of interest. Rory MacLean has declared no conflicts of interest. Jennifer Murray has declared no conflicts of interest. Andrew C. Pollock has declared no conflicts of interest. Phyllis Laybourn has declared no conflicts of interest.
Références
Law Hum Behav. 2005 Dec;29(6):705-22
pubmed: 16382357
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):107-29
pubmed: 17201556
Br J Psychol. 2008 Aug;99(Pt 3):351-4; discussion 355-9
pubmed: 18158860
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2001 Jun;7(2):91-103
pubmed: 11477983
Law Hum Behav. 2008 Jun;32(3):241-52
pubmed: 17703354
Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):700-65
pubmed: 17014301
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Law Hum Behav. 2008 Oct;32(5):375-89
pubmed: 17957457
Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):343-52
pubmed: 15260204
J Math Psychol. 2001 Apr;45(2):334-354
pubmed: 11302716
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 21;106(16):6539-44
pubmed: 19342495
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
pubmed: 13310704
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38
pubmed: 13310708
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Feb;40(1):61-72
pubmed: 18411528
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Feb;36(1):34-5
pubmed: 23211367
Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):333-67
pubmed: 15065913
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 May 19;367(1594):1310-21
pubmed: 22492749
Psychol Rev. 1996 Oct;103(4):650-69
pubmed: 8888650
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Feb 26;8:102
pubmed: 24616689
Cogn Psychol. 2008 Nov;57(3):153-78
pubmed: 18243170
Behav Sci Law. 2011 May-Jun;29(3):467-79
pubmed: 21706517
Trends Neurosci. 2004 Mar;27(3):161-8
pubmed: 15036882
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:535-74
pubmed: 17600525