IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2010_34.html

The More the Better? Effects of Training and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Dickert

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

  • Britta Herbig

    (Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany)

  • Andreas Glöckner

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

  • Christina Gansen

    (University of Bonn)

  • Roman Portack

    (University of Bonn)

Abstract

In an experimental study we investigated effects of information amount and legal training on the judgment accuracy in legal cases. In a two (legal training: yes vs. no) x two (information amount: high vs. low) between-subjects design, 90 participants judged the premeditation of a perpetrator in eight real-world cases decided by the German Federal Court of Justice. Judgment accuracy was assessed in comparison with the Court’s ruling. Legal training increased judgment accuracy, but did not depend on the amount of information given. Furthermore, legal training corresponded with higher confidence. Interestingly, emotional reactions to the legal cases were stronger when more information was given for individuals without legal training but decreased for individuals with training. This interaction seems to be caused by fundamental differences in the way people construct their mental representations of the cases. We advance an information processing perspective to explain the observed differences in legal judgments and conclude with a discussion on the merits and problems of offering more information to lay people participating in legal decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Dickert & Britta Herbig & Andreas Glöckner & Christina Gansen & Roman Portack, 2010. "The More the Better? Effects of Training and Information Amount in Legal Judgments," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2010_34, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2010_34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2010_34online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_02, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    2. William W. Gould & Jeffrey Pitblado & Brian Poi, 2010. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LLC, edition 4, number ml4, March.
    3. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modelling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 215-228, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. António Madureira & Nico Baken & Harry Bouwman, 2011. "Value of digital information networks: a holonic framework," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Richard Iles & Haniel Gatumu & Samuel Kagunda, 2019. "The role of poverty on economic decision-making: a model of cognitive function and heuristic use," Working Papers 2019-3, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0241182 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    5. Julian N. Marewski & Katja Mehlhorn, 2011. "Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(6), pages 439-519, August.
    6. Julian N. Marewski & Rudiger F. Pohl & Oliver Vitouch, 2011. "Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (II)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(1), pages 1-6, February.
    7. A. Madureira & F. Hartog & N. Baken, 2016. "A holonic framework to understand and apply information processes in evolutionary economics: survey and proposal," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-190, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Glöckner, Andreas & Betsch, Tilmann, 2008. "Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 75-95, September.
    10. Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2010. "Role Induced Bias in Court: An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2010_37, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised Jan 2012.
    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. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.
    13. Jerome R. Busemeyer & Jörg Rieskamp, 2014. "Psychological research and theories on preferential choice," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 3, pages 49-72, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Mandeep K. Dhami & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2018. "Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    15. Arndt Bröder & Ben Newell, 2008. "Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 205-214, March.
    16. Hao, Xinyue & Demir, Emrah & Eyers, Daniel, 2024. "Exploring collaborative decision-making: A quasi-experimental study of human and Generative AI interaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Julian N. Marewski & Rudiger F. Pohl & Oliver Vitouch, 2010. "Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (Vol.\ 1)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(4), pages 207-215, July.
    18. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    19. Marc Jekel & Andreas Nicklisch & Andreas Gloeckner, 2010. "Implementation of the Multiple-Measure Maximum Likelihood strategy classification method in R: Addendum to Gloeckner (2009) and practical guide for application," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(1), pages 54-63, February.
    20. Stefan Scherbaum & Steven J Lade & Stefan Siegmund & Thomas Goschke & Maja Dshemuchadse, 2022. "From single decisions to sequential choice patterns: Extending the dynamics of value-based decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, April.
    21. Christoph Engel, 2008. "Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction. A Behavioural Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_33, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mpg:wpaper:2010_34. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.html .

    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.