IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/amlawe/v1y1999i1-2p26-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Judges Think about Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Viscusi, W Kip

Abstract

A sample of almost 100 judges exhibited well-known patterns of biases in risk beliefs and reasonable implicit values of life. These biases and personal preferences largely do not affect attitudes toward judicial risk decisions, though there are some exceptions, such as ambiguity aversion, misinterpretation of negligence rules, and retrospective risk assessments in accident cases, which is a form of hindsight bias. Although judges avoided many pitfalls exhibited by jurors and the population at large, they nevertheless exhibited systematic errors, particularly for small probability-large loss events. These findings highlighted the importance of judicial review and the input of expert risk analysts to assist judicial decisions in complex risk cases. Copyright 1999 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Viscusi, W Kip, 1999. "How Do Judges Think about Risk?," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 1(1-2), pages 26-62, Fall.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:1:y:1999:i:1-2:p:26-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2017. "Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 969-981, May.
    2. Miguel Á. Malo & Ángel Martín-Román & Alfonso Moral, 2018. "“Peer effects” or “quasi-peer effects” in Spanish labour court rulings," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 497-525, June.
    3. Martín-Román, Ángel & Moral, Alfonso & Martínez-Matute, Marta, 2015. "Peer effects in judicial decisions: Evidence from Spanish labour courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-37.
    4. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "Managerial Decision-Making in Non-Market Environments: A Survey Experiment," Working papers 4246-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2015. "Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 7-33.
    6. Jahn Karl Hakes & W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "Dead Reckoning: Demographic Determinants of the Accuracy of Mortality Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 651-664, June.
    7. W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "Tort Reform and Insurance Markets," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 9-24, March.

    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:oup:amlawe:v:1:y:1999:i:1-2:p:26-62. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/aler .

    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.