Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Court proceedings: Court proceedings are the formal process of resolving a legal dispute in a court of law. They involve the presentation of evidence, the examination of witnesses, and the arguments of attorneys. The goal of court proceedings is to reach a fair and just resolution of the dispute. See also Rights, Law, Justice._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Experimental Economics on Court Proceedings - Dictionary of Arguments
Parisi I 96 Litigation stratecy/court proceedings/Experimental economics/Sullivan Holt: Recognizing the cognitive limitations of most decision-makers (cf. Gigerenzer and Selten, 2001)(1), experiments can be - and already are - designed to improve the strategy and practice of litigation and advocacy. The use of mock juries, mock trials, and shadow juries to study juror influences and the persuasiveness of different legal theories is well traveled in both academic research and legal practice (see Devine et al., 2000)(2). These studies, which are often similar to economic experiments in many regards, approach the understanding of jury preferences, attention, and receptiveness to different arguments from an experimental perspective, replacing folk wisdom and anecdote with scientific inquiry (MacCoun, 1989)(3). Looking at this field of study prospectively, a closer integration of the methodology of jury simulation (see Bornstein, 1999)(4) and modern experimental economics may provide an interesting and novel approach to better understanding juror preferences. Cognitive biases/debiasing: A related application of experimental economics in legal practice involves the use of experiments to discover and implement debiasing techniques relevant to effective legal representation. Just as experiments can be used to discover cognitive biases that lead intuitive reasoning astray of objectively accurate conclusions (see e.g. Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, 1982)(5), experiments can also be used to explore techniques for debiasing intuitive reasoning. >Cognitive biases/Experimental economics. Prediction/probabilities: Experiments by Gigerenzer and Hoffrage (1995)(6) indicating improved Bayesian reasoning when probabilities are presented in frequency terms have similarly direct implications for the presentation of probabilities at trial. Example: (...) how well can experienced lawyers predict the outcome of a trial? As an empirical matter, the answer appears Parisi I 97 appears to be not very well at all (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2010)(7). The problem is the same overconfidence bias afflicting litigants in settlement bargaining (Loewenstein et al., 1993(8); Babcock et al., 1995)(9). This is a potential concern from the perspective of representing a client’s interests: an overconfident lawyer may fail to adequately inform a client of the weakness of a case, or may fail to see the weakness of a particular argument at trial through selective blindness to alternative interpretations of the facts. Again, however, experimental economics can be used to develop context-appropriate debiasing techniques. Among many parsimonious debiasing procedures that have been explored in the settlement bargaining context (see Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997)(10), enumeration of the weaknesses of one’s own case appears to be the most effective in the lab (Babcock, Loewenstein, and Issacharoff, 1997)(11). 1. Gigerenzer, G. and R. Selten, eds. (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 2. Devine, D. J., L. D. Clayton, B. B. Dunford, R. Seying, and J. Pryce (2000). “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(3): 622–727. 3. MacCoun, R. J. (1989). “Jury Decision-Making.” Science 244(4908): 1046–1050. 4. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). “The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?” Law and Human Behavior 23(1): 75–91. 5. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Gigerenzer, G. and U. Hoffrage (1995). “How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats.” Psychological Review 102(4): 684–704. 7. Goodman-Delahunty, J., P. A. Granhag, M. Hartwig, and E. F. Loftus (2010). “Insightful or Wishful: Lawyers’ Ability to Predict Case Outcomes.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16(2): 133–157. 8. Loewenstein, G., S. Issacharoff, C. Camerer, and L. Babcock (1993). “Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining.” Journal of Legal Studies 22(1): 135–159. 9. Babcock, L., C. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, and S. Issacharoff (1995). “Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining.” American Economic Review 85(5): 1337–1343. 10. Babcock, L. and G. Loewenstein (1997). “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: the Role of Self-Serving Biases.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(1): 109–126. 11. Babcock, L., G. Loewenstein, and S. Issacharoff (1997). “Creating Convergence: Debiasing Biased Litigants.” Law & Social Inquiry 22(4): 913–925. Sullivan, Sean P. and Charles A. Holt. „Experimental Economics and the Law“ In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Experimental Economics Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Experimental Economics
> Counter arguments in relation to Court Proceedings
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
