Models of decision making on guilt and sanctions

References (78)

1. Anderson. J. C, Lowe, D. J., & Reckers, P. M. J. (1993). Evaluation of auditor decisions: Hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 7 II -737•
2. Anderson, N. H. (r981). Foundations of infonnation integration theory. New York: Academic.
3. Arkes, H. R., & Shaffer, V. A (zo06). Should we use decision aids or gut feelings? In C Engel & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Heuristics and the law (pp. 4II-4z4). Cambridge, MA: MIT. Bolender, J. (ZOOI). A two-tiered cognitive architecture for moral reasoning. Biology B[ Philosophy, 16, 339-356.
4. Casper, G., & Zeisel, H. (197z). Lay judges in the German criminal courts. Journal ofLegal Studies, I, 135-191.
5. Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic.
6. Crott, H. W., & Werner, J. (1994). The norm-information-distance model: A stochastic approach to preference change in group interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 30, 68-95•
7. Cunningham, W., & Zelazo, P. D. (zo07). Attitudes and evaluation: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, II, 97-104.
8. Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. L. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology, vol. I (pp. 157-zz9). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B. et al. (ZOOl). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 62Z-727•
10. Dhami, M. K. (zo03). Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychological Science, 14, 175-180.
11. Dhami, M. K., & Ayton, P. (ZOOI). Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal way. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 141-168.
12. Diamond, S. S. (1990). Revising images of public punitiveness: Sentencing by lay and professional English magistrates. Law B[ Social Inquiry, 15, 191-2Z1.
13. Diamond, S. S. (zo03). Convergence and complementarity between professional judges and lay adjudicators. In P. Van Koppen & S. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisito- rial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 321-33z). New York: Plenum.
14. Diamond, S. S., & Zeisel, H. (1975). Sentencing council: A study of sentence disparity and its reduction. University of Chicago Law Review, 43,109-149.
15. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (zo06). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3z, 188-199.
16. Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement and justice: Studies in the psychology ofdeserving- ness. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
17. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight", foresight: The effect ofoutcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Peifonn- ance, I, 288-299.
18. Fitzmaurice, C, & Pease, K. (1986). The psychology ofjudicial sentencing. Manchester, UK: University Press.
19. ForsterLee, R., ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A, & King, E. (zo06). The effects of defendant race, victim race and juror gender on evidence processing in a murder trial. Behavioral Sciences B[ the Law, z4, 179-198.
20. Gastwirth, J. L. (1992). Statistical reasoning in the legal setting. American Statistician, 46, 55-6 9.
21. Gigerenzer, G. (zo06). Heuristics. In C Engel & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Heuristics and the law (pp. 17-41). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
22. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 1OZ, 684-7°4.
23. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3-34). Oxford: University Press.
24. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbiilting, H. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 59 z -59 6 .
25. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: University Press.
26. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (zooz). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Greenberg, M. S., & Ruback, R. B. (198z). Social psychology ofthe criminal justice system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
28. Greene, W. (zo03). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Guthrie, C, Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (ZOOI). Inside the judicial mind: Heuristics and biases. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-83°.
30. Harley, E. M. (2007). Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25, 48-63.
31. Hastie, R. (1993). Inside the juror: The psychology ofjuror decision making. New York: Cam- bridge University Press.
32. Hastie, R., & Wittenbrink, B. (2006). Heuristics for applying law to facts. In C Engel & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Heuristics and the law (pp. 259-280). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
33. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgment of the past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3II-327.
35. von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2008). Predicting sentencing in low level crimes: A cogni- tive modeling approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (zo08). The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(1), 73-96.
37. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 19-51.
38. Hoffrage, U., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Hindsight bias: A by-product of knowledge updating? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cogni- tion, z6, 566-581.
39. Huntley, J. E., & Costanzo, M. (zo03). Sexual harassment stories: Testing a story- mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 29-51.
40. Hupfeld, J. (in press). Men's and women's theories about the causes of crime: The influ- ence of severity and type of the offence on intentions to punish. In H.-J. Albrecht, T. Serassis & H. Kania (Eds.), Images ofcrime III. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
41. Inciardi, J. A. (2000). Elements ofcriminal justice. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
42. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
43. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
44. Kerr, N. (1993). Stochastic models of juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology ofjuror decision making (pp. II6-13S). New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
45. Koehler, j. j. (r993). Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence_ Juri- metrics, 34, 21-39•
46. Koehler, j. j., & Shaviro, D. N. (1990). Veridical verdicts: Increasing verdict accuracy through the use of overtly probabilistic evidence methods. Cornell Law Review, 7S, 247-279.
47. Konecni, V. j., & Ebbesen, E. E. (1982). The criminal justice system: A social psychological analysis. San Francisco: Freeman.
48. Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences e<: the Law, 12, II3-126.
49. Lawrence, j., & Homel, R. (1986). Sentencing in magistrates' courts: The magistrate as professional decision-maker. In I. Portas (Ed.), Sentencing in Australia: Policies, issues and reform (pp. lSl-191). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
50. Levett, L., Danielsen, E., Kovera, M., & Cutler, B. (200S). The psychology of jury and juror decision-making. In N. Brewer & K. Williams (Eds.), Psychology e<: law: An empirical perspective (pp. 36S-406). New York: Guilford.
51. Lindsey, S., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Communicating statistical DNA evi- dence. Jurimetrics, 43, 147-163-
52. Lurigio, A. j., Carroll, j. S., & Stalans, L. j. (1994). Understanding judges' sentencing decisions: Attributions of responsibility and story construction. In L. Heath, R. S. Tindale, j. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 91-IIS). New York: Plenum.
53. Malle, B. F., & Nelson, S. E. (2003). judging mens rea: The tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality. Behavioral Sciences e<: the Law, 21, S63-S80.
54. Moore, P. j., & Gump, B. B. (199S). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 25, 21S8-2179•
55. Olsen-Fulero, L., & Fulero, S. M. (1997). Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy- complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 4°2-4 2 7.
56. Pennington, D. c., & Uoyd-Bostock, S. M. A (1987). The psychology ofsentencing: Approaches to consistency and disparity. Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies.
57. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-287.
58. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R_ (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
59. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology ofjurar decision making (pp. 192-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Phelps, E. A (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 27-S3-
61. Robbennolt, j. (200S). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469-s09.
62. Ruback, R. B., & Wroblewski, j. (20m). The federal sentencing guidelines: Psychological and policy reasons for simplification. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 739-77S.
63. Saks, M. j., & Kidd, R. F. (1980-1981). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Lawe<: Society Review, IS, 123-160.
64. Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (199S). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 17S-19S.
65. Schklar, j., & Diamond, S. S. (1999)-juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, IS9-184-
66. Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology ofjuror decision making (pp. 17S-191). New York: Cam- bridge University Press.
67. Schum, D. A, & Martin, A. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded infer- ence in jurisprudence. Law e<: Society Review, 17, lOS-lSI.
68. Shultz, T. R., & Darley, j. M. (1991). An information processing model of retributive justice based on "reasoning". In W. M. Kurtines & j. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Vol. 2. Research (pp. 247-278). Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum.
69. Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, SII-S86.
70. Simon, D., & Holyoak, K. j. (2002). Structural dynamics of cognition: From consistency theories to constraint satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 283-2 94.
71. Simon, D., Snow C. j., & Read, S. j. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 86, 814-837.
72. Simon, H. E. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
73. Smith, B. c., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A L., & Park, R. C. (1996). jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20,49-82.
74. Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations oflegal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.
75. Tata, C. (1997). Conceptions and representations of the sentencing decision process. Journal of Law and Society, 24, 395-420.
76. Waye, V. (2003). judicial fact-finding: Trial by judge alone in serious criminal cases. Melbourne University Law Review, 27,423-457.
77. Wiener, R. L., Richmond, T. L., Seib, H. M. et al. (2002). The psychology of telling murder stories: Do we think in scripts, exemplars, or prototypes? Behavioral Sciences e<: the Law, 20, II9-139.
78. Vl Z