東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Paradoxes and Probabilities: The Con...

Irvine, Krin.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Paradoxes and Probabilities: The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims./
作者:	Irvine, Krin.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2024,
面頁冊數:	112 p.
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:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30990402
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. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2024 - 112 p.

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

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

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

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.

ISBN: 9798381944501Subjects--Topical Terms:

529833
Behavioral sciences.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Conjunction problem

Paradoxes and Probabilities: The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
LDR:03668nmm a2200421 4500 001 2396585
005 20240611104336.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2024 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798381944501
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30990402
035 $a AAI30990402
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Irvine, Krin. $3 3766282
245 1 0 $a Paradoxes and Probabilities: The Conjunction Problem and Lay Strategies for Combining Elements in Legal Claims.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 112 p.
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.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
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.
590 $a School code: 0330.
650 4 $a Behavioral sciences. $3 529833
650 4 $a Psychobiology. $3 555678
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Behavioral psychology. $3 2122788
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 520219
653 $a Conjunction problem
653 $a Legal claims
653 $a Probability theory
653 $a Civil legal case
653 $a Verbal probabilities
690 $a 0602
690 $a 0349
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0384
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Business. $3 1671506
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-09B.
790 $a 0330
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30990402