國立虎尾科技大學 |

Paradoxes and Probabilities : = The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Paradoxes and Probabilities :/
其他題名:	The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
作者:	Irvine, Krin.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (112 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-09, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-09B.
標題:	Behavioral sciences. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798381944501

Paradoxes and Probabilities : = The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
Irvine, Krin.

Paradoxes and Probabilities :The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims. - 1 online resource (112 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-09, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2024.

Includes bibliographical references

In a civil legal case, the plaintiff usually has to prove their case at a "more likely than not" standard (>50%) in order to win their claim. Legal claims typically involve multiple individual elements that also need to be proven to the same standard. In a civil claim with two elements relying on independent evidence, if the likelihood of each element was 60%, it is debatable whether the claim should win or lose. Each element has met the threshold and intuition suggests that the claim should win. However, probability theory would suggest multiplying these probabilities to reach a 36% likelihood of the overall case, which would dictate a loss for the plaintiff. Some state legal instructions contain a "conjunction problem" by stating both that a decision-maker should decide the claim based on "all of the evidence" as well as a statement that the claim is required to win if "all of the elements" are found to be true.Across four studies we examine how lay participants choose to combine elements into overall case-level decisions. We find very few people naturally follow a multiplicative combination rule across various contexts. In Studies 1 and 2 participants read detailed case descriptions and estimate their personal element probabilities. In Study 1 we find participants are sensitive to case strength details, but provide equivalent answers to two-element versus four-element cases, which sharply violates the multiplication rule. In Study 2 we do not observe differences based on whether or not the conjunction problem is included in the legal instructions. In Studies 3 and 4 participants read abstracted case descriptions and we provide stipulated element probabilities across multiple cases, allowing categorization of participants into combination strategies. In Study 3 we stipulate numeric probabilities and find that an introductory tutorial about probabilities reduces randomness and increases the use of conjunctive multiplication. In Study 4 we stipulate verbal probabilities and find that translating these verbal probabilities into numeric ones on each case page reduces randomness. Across these studies we find that most people are averaging the strength of evidence for the elements to reach an overall conclusion about the case, and that the conjunction-multiplying rule is followed by less than 10% of the respondents.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798381944501Subjects--Topical Terms:

1148596
Behavioral sciences.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Conjunction problemIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Paradoxes and Probabilities : = The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
LDR:03823ntm a22004217 4500 001 1144681
005 20240611104336.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2024 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798381944501
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30990402
035 $a AAI30990402
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Irvine, Krin. $3 1469794
245 1 0 $a Paradoxes and Probabilities : $b The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
264 0 $c 2024
300 $a 1 online resource (112 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-09, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Hastie, Reid;Wu, George.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2024.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a In a civil legal case, the plaintiff usually has to prove their case at a "more likely than not" standard (>50%) in order to win their claim. Legal claims typically involve multiple individual elements that also need to be proven to the same standard. In a civil claim with two elements relying on independent evidence, if the likelihood of each element was 60%, it is debatable whether the claim should win or lose. Each element has met the threshold and intuition suggests that the claim should win. However, probability theory would suggest multiplying these probabilities to reach a 36% likelihood of the overall case, which would dictate a loss for the plaintiff. Some state legal instructions contain a "conjunction problem" by stating both that a decision-maker should decide the claim based on "all of the evidence" as well as a statement that the claim is required to win if "all of the elements" are found to be true.Across four studies we examine how lay participants choose to combine elements into overall case-level decisions. We find very few people naturally follow a multiplicative combination rule across various contexts. In Studies 1 and 2 participants read detailed case descriptions and estimate their personal element probabilities. In Study 1 we find participants are sensitive to case strength details, but provide equivalent answers to two-element versus four-element cases, which sharply violates the multiplication rule. In Study 2 we do not observe differences based on whether or not the conjunction problem is included in the legal instructions. In Studies 3 and 4 participants read abstracted case descriptions and we provide stipulated element probabilities across multiple cases, allowing categorization of participants into combination strategies. In Study 3 we stipulate numeric probabilities and find that an introductory tutorial about probabilities reduces randomness and increases the use of conjunctive multiplication. In Study 4 we stipulate verbal probabilities and find that translating these verbal probabilities into numeric ones on each case page reduces randomness. Across these studies we find that most people are averaging the strength of evidence for the elements to reach an overall conclusion about the case, and that the conjunction-multiplying rule is followed by less than 10% of the respondents.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Behavioral sciences. $3 1148596
650 4 $a Psychobiology. $3 655331
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Behavioral psychology. $3 1179418
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 554804
653 $a Conjunction problem
653 $a Legal claims
653 $a Probability theory
653 $a Civil legal case
653 $a Verbal probabilities
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0602
690 $a 0349
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0384
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Business. $3 1179073
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-09B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30990402 $z click for full text (PQDT)