Forecasting trial outcomes: Lawyers assign higher probability to possibilities that are described in greater detail

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 159-173

  Fox, Craig R ^a   Birke, Richard ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LAWYER; LEGAL ASPECT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROBABILITY; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL SUPPORT; THEORY; FORECASTING; JURISPRUDENCE; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036551032     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1014687809032     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arkes, H. R. (1991). Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for Debiasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 486-498.
2. Bearden, N., Wallsten, T., & Fox, C. R. (2001). Constrasting stochastic and support theory explanations of subadditivity. Manuscript in preparation.
3. Birke, R., & Fox, C. R. (1999). Psychological principles in negotiating civil settlements. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 4, 1-57.
4. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330-344.
5. Fox, C. R. (1999). Strength of evidence, judged probability, and choice under uncertainty. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 167-189.
6. Fox, C. R., Rogers, B. A., & Tversky, A. (1996). Options traders exhibit subadditive decision weights. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13, 5-17.
7. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1998). A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44, 879-895.
8. Guthrie, C., Rachlinsky, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
9. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10. Loewenstein, G., Isaacharoff, S., Camerer, C. F. & Babcock, L. (1993). Self-serving assesments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 22, 135-159.
11. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
12. Redelmeier, D., Koehler, D. J., Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1995). Probability judgment in medicine: Discounting unspecified possibilities. Medical Decision Making, 15, 227-230.
13. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
14. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
15. Teigen, K. H. (1974). Subjective sampling distributions and the additivity of estimates. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 24, 97-105.
16. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 91, 293-315.
17. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.