scholarly journals Numeracy in the jury box: Numerical ability, meaningful anchors, and damage award decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 434-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca K. Helm ◽  
Valerie P. Hans ◽  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
Krystia Reed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Numerical Ability ◽  
Damage Award

Reforming damage award decision making.

2004 ◽  
pp. 175-197
Author(s):  
Edie Greene ◽  
Brian H. Bornstein
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Damage Award

Self-Esteem and Group Decision Making: An Empirical Study

1980 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-956
Author(s):  
T. M. Schwartz ◽  
V. J. Wullwick ◽  
H. J. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Self Concept ◽  
Numerical Ability ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Common Target

To assess the impact of self-esteem on group decision making 270 students in business were assigned to groups of 3 by sex, numerical ability, and self-esteem on the Tennessee Self-concept Scale. For scores on a ‘common-target’ game there was no correlation between sex and problem-solving ability, which however showed low rs with self-concept. Medium self-concept was associated with greater success than high or low self-concept.

scholarly journals What's it Worth? Jury Damage Awards as Community Judgments

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie P. Hans
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Damage Awards ◽  
Community Values ◽  
Damage Award ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Community Perspectives ◽  
Political Dimensions

55 William & Mary Law Review 935 (2014)In a recent article, The Political Puzzle of the Civil Jury, Jason Solomon questions whether the civil jury operates effectively as a political institution. Civil juries are said to perform multiple political functions. They inject community perspectives and values into legal decision making. They act as a check on government and corporate power. They legitimize the civil justice system. Finally, they promote greater civic engagement among jurors. Solomon concludes, however, that these claims about the civil jury's multiple political functions are overstated and understudied. He calls for more theoretical and empirical study of the civil jury's performance of its political functions.This Article offers a response to Solomon's piece, providing evidence about the political dimensions of jury damage award decision making. I argue that the damage award is a key part of the civil jury's political activity. Indeed, in my view, it is just as significant as the political nature of the civil jury's liability judgment, which up to now has been a more frequent topic of scholarly inquiry. This Article focuses on one of the dimensions Solomon identifies: the injection of community perspectives and values into legal decision making. I contend that damage awards and community values are deeply intertwined. The dollars that juries award, from the compensatory amounts they grant to auto accident victims to the punitive damages they deliver against large corporations, are very much products of community views and sentiments. In my view, damage awards constitute powerful political actions by the civil jury. Civil jury damage awards serve to check or endorse private power, whether it is power over one's own neighbors or over business corporations. To support my argument, I draw on theoretical accounts of jury decision making about damages, including the story model, insights from cultural cognition research, and a new gist model that cognitive psychologist Valerie Reyna and I have developed to explain the process of jury damage award decision making. Jurors' values constitute an important component of these and other models. I also describe the empirical research that documents and establishes the pervasive influence and content of community values in jury damage award judgments.

Numeracy and Decision Making

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 407-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Peters ◽  
Daniel Västfjäll ◽  
Paul Slovic ◽  
C.K. Mertz ◽  
Ketti Mazzocco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Affective Responses ◽  
General Intelligence ◽  
Conceptual Level ◽  
Numerical Ability ◽  
Affective Meaning ◽  
Numerical Comparisons ◽  
Decision Tasks

A series of four studies explored how the ability to comprehend and transform probability numbers relates to performance on judgment and decision tasks. On the surface, the tasks in the four studies appear to be widely different; at a conceptual level, however, they all involve processing numbers and the potential to show an influence of affect. Findings were consistent with highly numerate individuals being more likely to retrieve and use appropriate numerical principles, thus making themselves less susceptible to framing effects, compared with less numerate individuals. In addition, the highly numerate tended to draw different (generally stronger or more precise) affective meaning from numbers and numerical comparisons, and their affective responses were more precise. Although generally helpful, this tendency may sometimes lead to worse decisions. The less numerate were influenced more by competing, irrelevant affective considerations. Analyses showed that the effect of numeracy was not due to general intelligence. Numerical ability appears to matter to judgments and decisions in important ways.

scholarly journals The gist of juries: Testing a model of damage award decision making.

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
Valerie P. Hans ◽  
Jonathan C. Corbin ◽  
Ryan Yeh ◽  
Kelvin Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Damage Award

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The primacy of conscious decision making – ERRATUM

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document