Strange Interlude: An Analysis of Juvenile Parole Revocation Decision Making

1992 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gray Cavender ◽  
Paul Knepper
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Parole Revocation ◽  
Juvenile Parole

Risk Classification Systems and the Provision of Juvenile Aftercare

1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Maupin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Risk Classification ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Street Level ◽  
Parole Officers ◽  
Classification Score ◽  
Street Level Bureaucrats ◽  
Juvenile Parole

Juvenile aftercare decision-making systems that classify parolees according to perceived risk and needs are designed to render uniform the treatment of these individuals by juvenile parole officials. This article analyzes a system implemented by Arizona to determine if the intensity of supervision received by parolees differs as a function of classification score. Supervision of a random sample of 280 parolees was tracked for 90 days. The analysis indicates that intensity of supervision does not differ based on the classification score, suggesting that the instrument does not control the decision making of the street-level bureaucrats, the parole officers.

Parole survival and legislated change: A before/after study of parole revocation decision making

1990 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Thomas Winfree ◽  
John Wooldredge ◽  
Christine S. Sellers ◽  
Veronica Smith Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Parole Revocation

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