IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v10y2013i2p230-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Glöckner
  • Christoph Engel

Abstract

Jury members are confronted with highly complex, ill‐defined problems. Coherence‐based reasoning (Pennington & Hastie 1992; Simon 2004), which partially relies on intuitive‐automatic processing, empowers them to nonetheless make meaningful decisions. These processes, however, have a downside. We tested possible negative effects in a set of studies. Specifically, we investigated whether stricter standards of proof are suppressed by stronger coherence shifts and whether the probative value of the evidence is properly taken into account. We found that U.S. model jury instructions for preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt influence conviction rates in the intended direction and are not undermined by coherence shifts, although probabilistic estimations of these standards are inappropriate. However, even massive changes in explicitly stated probabilities, while holding the overall constellation of facts constant, did not influence conviction rates or the estimated probability of conviction. We argue that reforms in legal procedure should focus on measures to reduce the negative side effects of coherence‐based reasoning in general but, more specifically, to make probabilistic information better evaluable for decisionmakers in law.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2013. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 230-252, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:2:p:230-252
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12009
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    2. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    3. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    5. Sloman, Steven A. & Over, David & Slovak, Lila & Stibel, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Frequency illusions and other fallacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 296-309, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    2. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner & Sinika Timme, 2017. "Defendant Should Have the Last Word – Experimentally Manipulating Order and Provisional Assessment of the Facts in Criminal Procedure," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2017_24, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Christoph Engel & Rima-Maria Rahal, 2022. "Eye-Tracking as a Method for Legal Research," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Aimone, Jason A. & Hudja, Stanton & Law, Wilson & North, Charles M. & Ralston, Jason & Rentschler, Lucas, 2023. "An experimental exploration of reasonable doubt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 873-886.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:129-147 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    7. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    8. Shay Lavie & Tal Ganor & Yuval Feldman, 2020. "Adjusting legal standards," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 33-53, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    3. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    6. Anne-Sophie Chaxel & J. Edward Russo & Neda Kerimi, 2013. "Preference-driven biases in decision makers' information search and evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 561-576, September.
    7. DeKay, Michael L. & Miller, Seth A. & Schley, Dan R. & Erford, Breann M., 2014. "Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 134-150.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:561-576 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    10. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    11. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Gerrit Antonides & Lies Hovestadt, 2021. "Product Attributes, Evaluability, and Consumer Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Satakhun Kosavinta & Donyaprueth Krairit & Do Ba Khang, 2017. "Decision making in the pre-development stage of residential development," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 160-183, March.
    14. Russo, J.E. & Yong, Kevyn, 2011. "The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 132-139, May.
    15. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    16. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:23-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Windschitl, Paul D. & Scherer, Aaron M. & Smith, Andrew R. & Rose, Jason P., 2013. "Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 73-86.
    20. Martine Nurek & Olga Kostopoulou & York Hagmayer, 2014. "Predecisional information distortion in physicians' diagnostic judgments: Strengthening a leading hypothesis or weakening its competitor?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 572-585, November.
    21. David Gal, 2006. "A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 23-32, July.
    22. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    23. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:2:p:230-252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.