Behavioral Economics and Court Decision-Making

References

Adame, B.J. (2016). Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: a test of the consider-the-opposite strategy. Learn. Motiv. 53: 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.002.Search in Google Scholar

Allen, R.J. and Pardo, M.S. (2007). The problematic value of mathematical models of evidence. J. Leg. Stud. 36: 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/508269.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, J.C., Jordan Lowe, D., and Reckers, P.M.J. (1993). Evaluation of auditor decisions; hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap. J. Econ. Psychol. 14: 711–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(93)90018-g.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, J.C., Marianne, J., Kaplan, S.E., and Reckers, P.M.J. (1995). The effect of using diagnostic decision aids for analytical procedures on judges’ liability judgments. J. Account. Publ. Pol. 14: 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(94)00021-r.Search in Google Scholar

Arkes, H.R., Shoots-Reinhard, B., and Mayes, R.S. (2012). Disjunction between probability and verdict in juror decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Making 25: 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.734.Search in Google Scholar

Arkes, H.R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T.J., and Hart, K. (1988). Eliminating the hindsight bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 73: 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.305.Search in Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol. 44: 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3.Search in Google Scholar

Bergman, P. (1996). A bunch of circumstantial evidence. Univ. San Francisco Law Rev. 30: 985–990.Search in Google Scholar

Bernstein, D.M., Erdfelder, E., Meltzoff, A.N., Peria, W., and Loftus, G.R. (2011). Hindsight bias from 3 to 95 Years of age. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37: 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021971.Search in Google Scholar

Bornstein, B.H. and Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190201340.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable Artificial intelligence: holding algorithms to account. Publ. Adm. Rev. 81: 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293.Search in Google Scholar

Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., and Skórska, P. (2021). Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 45: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000438.Search in Google Scholar

Calvillo, D.P. and Rutchick, A.M. (2014). Domain knowledge and hindsight bias among poker players. J. Behav. Decis. Making 27: 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1799.Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, J., Chao, B., Robertson, C., David, V., and Yokum (2016). Countering the plaintiffs anchor: jury simulations to evaluate damages arguments. Iowa Law Rev. 101: 543–571.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Y.-C., Eisenberg, T., Li, T.H., and Martin, T.W. (2017). Pain and suffering damages in personal injury cases: an empirical study. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 14: 199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12145.Search in Google Scholar

Chapman, G.B. and Bornstein, B.H. (1996). The more you ask for the more you get: anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 10: 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::aid-acp417>3.0.co;2-5.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5Search in Google Scholar

Charman, S.D., Carbone, J., Kekessie, S., and Villalba, D.K. (2016). Evidence evaluation and evidence integration in legal decision-making: order of evidence presentation as a moderator of context effects. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 30: 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3181.Search in Google Scholar

Chase, O.G. (1995). Helping jurors determine pain and suffering awards. Hofstra Law Rev. 23: 763–790.Search in Google Scholar

Cheney, F.W., Posner, K., Caplan, R.A., and Ward, R.J. (1989). Standard of care and anesthesia liability. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 261: 1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.261.11.1599.Search in Google Scholar

Christensen-Szalanski Jay, J.J. and Fobian Willham, C. (1991). The hindsight bias: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 48: 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90010-q.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, L.J. (1977). The probable and the provable. Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198244127.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, L.J. (1981a). Subjective probability and the paradox of the gatecrasher. Ariz. State Law J. 2: 627–634.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, L.J. (1981b). Can human irrationality Be experimentally demonstrated? Behav. Brain Sci. 4: 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00009092.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, L.J. (1986). The role of evidential weight in criminal proof. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 66: 635–650.10.1007/978-94-009-2931-9_5Search in Google Scholar

Conklin, M. (2019). Combating arbitrary jurisprudence by addressing anchoring bias. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 97: 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

Constantinides, E. (2004). Influencing the online consumer’s behavior: the web experience. Internet Res. 14: 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410530835.Search in Google Scholar

De Wilde, T.R.W., Velden, F.S.T., and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2018). The anchoring-bias in groups. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76: 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Diamond, S.S., Michael, J.S., and Stephan, L. (1998). Juror judgments about liability and damages: sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Rev. 48: 301–325.Search in Google Scholar

Diamond, S.S., Rose, M.R., Murphy, B., and Meixner, J. (2011). Damage anchors on real juries. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8: 148–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01232.x.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, T. and Wells, M.T. (1993). Deadly confusion: juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Rev. 79: 1–17.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, T., Goerdt, J., Ostrom, B., Rottman, D., and Wells, M.T. (1997). Predictability of punitive damages. J. Leg. Stud. 26: 623–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/468010.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, T., Rachlinski, J.J., and Wells, M.T. (2002). Reconciling experimental incoherence with real-world coherence in punitive awards. Stanford Law Rev. 54: 1239–1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229620.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, T., Hannaford, P.L., Heise, M., LaFountain, N., and Ostrom, B. (2006). Juries, judges, and punitive damages: empirical analyses using the civil justice survey of state courts 1992, 1996, and 2001 data. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 3: 263–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00070.x.Search in Google Scholar

Engel, C., Timme, S., and Glöckner, A. (2020). Coherence-based reasoning and order effects in legal judgments. Psychol. Publ. Pol. Law 26: 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000257.Search in Google Scholar

Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., and Fritz, S. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32: 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152.Search in Google Scholar

Faigman, D.L. and Baglioni, A.J.Jr. (1988). Bayes’ theorem in the trial process. Law Hum. Behav. 12: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01064271.Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, Y., Schurr, A., and Teichman, D. (2016). Anchoring legal standards. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 13: 298–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12116.Search in Google Scholar

Fenton, N.E. and Neil, M. (2011). Avoiding probabilistic reasoning fallacies in legal practice using bayesian networks. Aust. J. Leg. Philos. 36: 114–150.Search in Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1: 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288.Search in Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1977). Perceived informativeness of facts. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 3: 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.349.Search in Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. and Beyth, R. (1975). I knew it would happen’ remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90002-1.Search in Google Scholar

Franck, S. D., van Aaken, A., Freda, J., Guthrie, C., and Rachlinski, J. J. (2017). Inside the arbitrator’s mind. Emory Law J. 66: 1115–1173.10.31228/osf.io/ea5pmSearch in Google Scholar

Frederick, S. W. and Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141: 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024006.Search in Google Scholar

Furnham, A. (1986). The robustness of the recency effect: studies using legal evidence. J. Gen. Psychol. 113: 351–357.10.1080/00221309.1986.9711045Search in Google Scholar

Goodman, J. (1992). Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. Am. J. Trial Advocacy 16: 361–390.Search in Google Scholar

Greene, E. and Bornstein, B.H. (2003). Determining damages: the psychology of jury awards. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.10.1037/10464-000Search in Google Scholar

Greene, E., Coon, D., and Bornstein, B.H. (2001). The effects of limiting punitive damage awards. Law Hum. Behav. 25: 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010741826826.10.1023/A:1010741826826Search in Google Scholar

Greenstein, R.K. (2009). Determining facts: the myth of direct evidence. Houst. Law Rev. 45: 1801–1830.Search in Google Scholar

Guilbault, R.L., Bryant, F.B., Howard Brockway, J., and Posavac, E.J. (2004). A meta-analysis of research on hindsight bias. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26: 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2602&3_1.10.1080/01973533.2004.9646399Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C. (2003a). Prospect theory, risk preference, and the law. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 97: 1115–1163.10.2139/ssrn.344600Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C. (2003b). Panacea or pandora’s box? The costs of options in negotiation. Iowa Law Rev. 88: 601–653.10.2139/ssrn.358406Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C. and George, T.E. (2005). The futility of appeal: disciplinary insights into the ‘affirmance effect’ on the United States courts of appeals. Fla. State Univ. Law Rev. 32: 357–385.Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., and Wistrich, A.J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev. 86: 777–830.10.2139/ssrn.257634Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., and Wistrich, A.J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases. Cornell Law Rev. 93: 1–43.Search in Google Scholar

Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., and Wistrich, A.J. (2009). The ‘hidden judiciary’: an empirical examination of executive branch justice. Duke Law J. 58: 1477–1530.10.2139/ssrn.1374346Search in Google Scholar

Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D., and Ronald Buckley, M. (2017). An accountability account: a review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. J. Organ. Behav. 38: 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052.Search in Google Scholar

Hans, V.P. and Reyna, V.F. (2011). To dollars from sense: qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8: 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01233.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hastie, R. (2011). The challenge to produce useful ‘legal numbers. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8: 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01224.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hastie, R., and Viscusi, K.W. (1998). What juries can’t do well: the jury’s performance as a risk manager. Ariz. Law Rev. 40: 901–921.Search in Google Scholar

Hastie, R., Schkade, D.A., and Payne, J.W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: effects of plaintiff’s requests and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law Hum. Behav. 23: 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022312115561.10.1023/A:1022312115561Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, S.A. and Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychol. Bull. 107: 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.311.Search in Google Scholar

Hell, W., Gigerenzer, G., Gauggel, S., Mall, M., and Müller, M. (1988). Hindsight bias: an interaction of automatic and motivational factors? Mem. Cognit. 16: 533–538. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197054.Search in Google Scholar

Heller, K.J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Mich. Law Rev. 105: 241–305.Search in Google Scholar

Helm, R., Wistrich, A.J., and Rachlinski, J.J. (2016). Are arbitrators human? J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 13: 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12129.Search in Google Scholar

Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: asymmetric domination and compromise effects. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 13: 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0176-2680(97)00020-7.Search in Google Scholar

Hinsz, V.B. and Indhal, K.E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25: 991–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02386.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hirt, E.R. and Markman, K.D. (1995). Multiple explanation: a consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69: 1069–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069.Search in Google Scholar

Holyoak, K. and Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 128: 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Hsee, C.K. and Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5: 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586.Search in Google Scholar

Imhoff, R. and Nickolaus, C. (2021). Combined anchoring: prosecution and defense claims as sequential anchors in the courtroom. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 26: 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12192.Search in Google Scholar

Jois, G.U. (2009). Stare decisis is cognitive error. Brooklyn Law Rev. 75: 63–141.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. and Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am. Psychol. 64: 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 80: 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5: 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., and Sunstein, C.R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: the psychology of punitive damages. J. Risk Uncertain. 16: 49–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007710408413.10.1023/A:1007710408413Search in Google Scholar

Kamin, K.A. and Rachlinski, J.J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: determining liability in hindsight. Law Hum. Behav. 19: 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01499075.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., Casey, P., Dasgupta, N., Faigman, D., Godsil, Ra., Greenwald, A.G., Levinson, J., and Mnookin, J. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Rev. 59: 1124–1186.Search in Google Scholar

Kaye, D. (1987). Apples and oranges: confidence coefficient and the burden of persuasion. Cornell Law Rev. 73: 54–77.Search in Google Scholar

Kehler, J.J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behav. Brain Sci. 19: 1–53.10.1017/S0140525X00041157Search in Google Scholar

Kelman, M., Rottenstreich, Y., and Amos, T. (1996). Context-dependence in legal decision making. J. Leg. Stud. 25: 287–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/467979.Search in Google Scholar

Kerstholt, J.H. and Jackson, J.L. (1998). Judicial decision making: order of evidence presentation and availability of background information. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 12: 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199810)12:5<445::aid-acp518>3.0.co;2-8.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199810)12:5<445::AID-ACP518>3.0.CO;2-8Search in Google Scholar

Koehler, J.J. (2002). When do courts think base rate statistics are relevant? Jurimetrics 42: 373–402.Search in Google Scholar

Korobkin, R. and Guthrie, C. (1997). Psychology, economics, and settlement: a new look at the role of the lawyer. Tex. Law Rev. 76: 77–141.Search in Google Scholar

LaBine, S.J. and LaBine, G. (1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law Hum. Behav. 20: 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01499038.Search in Google Scholar

Leibovitch, A. (2017a). Relative judgments. J. Leg. Stud. 45: 281–330.10.1086/687376Search in Google Scholar

Leibovitch, A. (2017b). Punishing on a curve. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 111: 1205–1280.10.2139/ssrn.2820197Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol. Bull. 125: 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255.Search in Google Scholar

Li, L., Maniadis, Z., and Sedikides, C. (2021). Anchoring in economics: a meta-analysis of studies on willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 90: 101629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101629.Search in Google Scholar

Lieberman, J.D. (2009). The psychology of the jury instruction process. In: Lieberman, J.D. and Krauss, D.A. (Eds.), Psychology in the courtroom: social aspects of trial processes, Vol. 1. Jury Psychology, pp. 129–155.10.4324/9781315590790-6Search in Google Scholar

Lieberman, J.D. and Sales, B.D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychol. Publ. Pol. Law 3: 589–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Z. (2018). Does reason writing reduce decision bias? Experimental evidence from judges in China. J. Leg. Stud. 47: 83–118.10.1086/696879Search in Google Scholar

Liu, J.Z. and Li, X. (2019). Legal techniques for rationalizing biased judicial decisions: evidence from experiments with real judges. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 16: 630–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12229.Search in Google Scholar

Lord, C.G., Lepper, M.R., and Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47: 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1231.Search in Google Scholar

Lowe, D.J. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1994). The effects of hindsight bias on jurors’ evaluations of auditor decisions. Decis. Sci. J. 25: 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01850.x.Search in Google Scholar

Mandel, G.N. (2006). Patently non-obvious: empirical demonstration that the hindsight bias renders patent decisions irrational. Ohio State Law J. 67: 1391–1464.10.2139/ssrn.871684Search in Google Scholar

Marti, M.W. and Wissler, R. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: the effect of anchors on personal injury damages awards. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6: 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.6.2.91.Search in Google Scholar

Mayson, S.G. (2019). Bias in, bias out. Yale Law J. 128: 2218–2300.Search in Google Scholar

McAuliff, D.B. and Bornstein, B.H. (2010). All anchors are not created equal: the effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards. Law Hum. Behav. 34: 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9178-8.Search in Google Scholar

Mugerman, Y., Neta, N., and Moran, O. (2020). Are courts biased? The anchoring heuristic and judicial decisions in personal bankruptcy proceedings. In: Venezia, I. (Ed.), Behavioral finance: a novel approach, Vol. 99–128. World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ.10.1142/9789811229251_0005Search in Google Scholar

Mussweiler, T., Fritz, S., and Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable Anchoring effect: considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26: 1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611010.Search in Google Scholar

Myrto, P., Klein, O., and Kissine, M. (2020). Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 15: 214–229.Search in Google Scholar

Nance, D.A. (2016). The burdens of proof: discriminatory power, weight of evidence, and tenacity of belief. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781316415771Search in Google Scholar

Niedermeier, K.E., Kerr, N.L., and Messé, L.A. (1999). Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: exploring bases and implications of the wells effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76: 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.533.Search in Google Scholar

Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39: 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-x.Search in Google Scholar

Oeberst, A. and Goeckenjan, I. (2016). When being wise after the event results in injustice: evidence for hindsight bias in judges’ negligence assessments. Psychol. Publ. Pol. Law 22: 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000091.Search in Google Scholar

Parisi, F. (2004). The efficiency of the common law hypothesis. In: Rowley, C.K. and Schneider, F. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 195–198.10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_86Search in Google Scholar

Pennington, D.C. (1982). Witnesses and their testimony: effects of ordering on juror verdicts. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 12: 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00868.x.Search in Google Scholar

Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14: 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521.Search in Google Scholar

Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model. Cardozo Law Rev. 13: 519–557.Search in Google Scholar

Posner, R.A. (1993). What do judges and justices maximize? (The same thing everybody else does). Supreme Court Econ. Rev. 3: 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.3.1147064.Search in Google Scholar

Prescott, J.J. (2017). Improving access to justice in state courts with platform technology. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 70: 1993–2050.Search in Google Scholar

Pundik, A. (2008). What is wrong with statistical evidence? The attempts to establish an epistemic deficiency. Civ. Justice Q. 4: 461–493.10.2139/ssrn.1134656Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J. (1996). Gains, losses, and the psychology of litigation. South. Calif. Law Rev. 70: 113–185.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J. (1998). A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 65: 571–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600229.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J. and Forest, J. (2003). The cognitive components of punishment. Cornell Law Rev. 88: 457–485.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J. and Wistrich, A.J. (2017). Judging the judiciary by the numbers: empirical research on judges. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13: 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J. and Wistrich, A.J. (2018). Gains, losses, and judges: framing and the judiciary. Notre Dame Law Rev. 94: 521–582.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J., Guthrie, C., and Wistrich, A.J. (2011). Probable cause, probability, and hindsight. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8: 72–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x.Search in Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J.J., Wistrich, A.J., and Guthrie, C. (2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments: distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law J. 90: 695–739.Search in Google Scholar

Ritov, I. and Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J. Behav. Decis. Making 3: 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960030404.Search in Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J.K. and Studebaker, C.A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: the effects of caps on punitive damages. Law Hum. Behav. 23: 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022312716354.10.1023/A:1022312716354Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, P.H. and Darley, J.M. (1997). The utility of desert. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 91: 453–499.Search in Google Scholar

Roese, N.J. and Vohs, K.D. (2012). Hindsight bias. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7: 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612454303.Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, P.H. (Ed.) (2007). The evolution of efficient common law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.Search in Google Scholar

Saks, M.J. and Kidd, R.F. (1980). Human information processing and adjudication: trial by heuristics. Law Soc. Rev. 15: 123–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053225.Search in Google Scholar

Saks, M.J., Hollinger, L.A., Wissler, R.L., Evans, D.L., and Hart, A.J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law Hum. Behav. 21: 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024834614312.10.1023/A:1024834614312Search in Google Scholar

Samuelson, W. and Zeckhouser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1: 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00055564.Search in Google Scholar

Schkade, D., Sunstein, C.R., and Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: the severity shift. Columbia Law Rev. 100: 1139–1175. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123539.Search in Google Scholar

Schwarz, N. and Bless, H. (1992). Scandals and the public’s trust in politicians: assimilation and contrast effects. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18: 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185007.Search in Google Scholar

Schweizer, M. (2015). Loss aversion, omission bias, and the civil standard of proof. In: Mathis, K. (Ed.), European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Springer, Cham, Germany, pp. 125–146.10.1007/978-3-319-11635-8_7Search in Google Scholar

Schwitzgebel, E. and Cushman, F. (2012). Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind Lang. 27: 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2012.01438.x.Search in Google Scholar

Sharkey, C.M. (2005). Unintended consequences of medical malpractice damages caps. N. Y. Univ. Law Rev. 80: 391–512.Search in Google Scholar

Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic Analysis of law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.10.4159/9780674043497Search in Google Scholar

Siegel-Jacobs, K. and Yates, F.J. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65: 1–17.10.1006/obhd.1996.0001Search in Google Scholar

Simon, D. (1998). A psychological model of judicial decision making. Rutgers Law J. 30: 1–142.Search in Google Scholar

Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 71: 511–586.Search in Google Scholar

Simon, D., Pham, L.B., Le, Q.A., and Holyoak, K.J. (2001). The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27: 1250–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1250.Search in Google Scholar

Simon, D., Snow, C.J., and Read, S.J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86: 814–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.814.Search in Google Scholar

Simonson, I. and Barry, M.S. (1992). Deescalation strategies: a comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. J. Appl. Psychol. 77: 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.419.Search in Google Scholar

Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Market. Res. 29: 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900301.Search in Google Scholar

Skeem, J., Scurich, N., and Monahan, J. (2020). Impact of risk assessment on judges’ fairness in sentencing relatively poor defendants. Law Hum. Behav. 44: 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000360.Search in Google Scholar

Steblay, N., Hosch, H.M., Culhane, S.E., and Adam, M. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 30: 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.Search in Google Scholar

Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of evidence law. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198257363.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stein, C.T. and Drouin, M. (2018). Cognitive bias in the courtroom: combating the anchoring effect through tactical debiasing. Univ. San Francisco Law Rev. 52: 393–427.Search in Google Scholar

Taragin, M.I., Willett, L.R., Wilczek, A.P., Trout, R., and Carson, J.L. (1992). The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann. Intern. Med. 117: 780–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-117-9-780.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, W.C. and Schumann, E.L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law Hum. Behav. 11: 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01044641.Search in Google Scholar

Tindale, R.S., Nadler, J., Krebel, A., and James, H.D. (2001). Procedural mechanisms and jury behavior. In: Hogg, M.A. and Tindale, R.S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: group processes. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp. 574–602.10.1002/9780470998458.ch24Search in Google Scholar

Tokson, M. (2015). Judicial resistance and legal change. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 82: 901–973.Search in Google Scholar

Tribe, L.H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harv. Law Rev. 84: 1329–1393. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339610.Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90: 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293.Search in Google Scholar

Vidmar, N. and Hans, V.P. (2007). American juries: the verdict. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.Search in Google Scholar

Viscusi, W.K. (1999). How do judges think about risk? Am. Law Econ. Rev. 1: 26–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/1.1.26.Search in Google Scholar

Viscusi, W.K. (2001a). The challenge of punitive damages mathematics. J. Leg. Stud. 30: 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1086/322059.Search in Google Scholar

Viscusi, W.K. (2001b). Juries, judges, and the mistreatment of risk by the courts. J. Leg. Stud. 30: 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1086/468113.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, L., Thibaut, J., and Andreoli, V. (1972). Order of presentation at trial. Yale Law J. 82: 216–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/795112.Search in Google Scholar

Wells, G.L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: is subjective probability enough? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 62: 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.739.Search in Google Scholar

Wigmore, J.H. (1983). Evidence in trials at common law, Vol. 1A. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA (revised by Peter Tillers).Search in Google Scholar

Wissler, R.L., Hart, A.J., and Saks, M.J. (1999). Decisionmaking about general damages: a comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Mich. Law Rev. 98: 751–826. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290315.Search in Google Scholar

Wistrich, A.J. (2012). The evolving temporality of lawmaking. Conn. Law Rev. 44: 737–826.Search in Google Scholar

Wistrich, A.J., Guthrie, C., and Rachlinski, J.J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 153: 1251–1345.10.2307/4150614Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E. (2015). Law, psychology, and morality: the Role of loss aversion. Oxford University Press, New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199972050.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E., and Ritov, I. (2010). Revisiting the debate over attorneys’ contingent fees: a behavioral analysis. J. Leg. Stud. 39: 245–288. https://doi.org/10.1086/605510.Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E. and Ritov, I. (2012). Loss aversion, omission bias, and the burden of proof in civil litigation. J. Leg. Stud. 41: 165–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/664911.Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E. and Teichman, D. (2018). Behavioral Law and economics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.10.1093/oso/9780190901349.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E., Ritov, I., and Teichman, D. (2014). Seeing is believing: the anti-inference bias. Indiana Law J. 89: 195–229.10.2139/ssrn.1989561Search in Google Scholar

Zamir, E., Harlev, E., and Ritov, I. (2017). New evidence about circumstantial evidence. Law Psychol. Rev. 41: 107–158.Search in Google Scholar