|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
First published in 1976. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor &
Francis, an informa company.
The Adaptive Decision Maker argues that people use a variety of strategies to make judgments and choices. The authors introduce a model that shows how decision makers which strategy a person will use in a given situation. A series of experiments testing the model are presented, and the authors analyze how the model can lead to improved decisions and opportunities for further research.
The Adaptive Decision Maker argues that people use a variety of strategies to make judgments and choices. The authors introduce a model that shows how decision makers which strategy a person will use in a given situation. A series of experiments testing the model are presented, and the authors analyze how the model can lead to improved decisions and opportunities for further research.
Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic
increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts
rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary
example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida
class action lawsuit brought against the cigarette manufacturers.
More puzzling were two recent verdicts against the auto
manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same
court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in
punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at
all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights and the
environment, multimillion dollar punitive awards have been a
subject of intense controversy. But how do juries actually make
decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors -
specialists in psychology, economics and the law - present the
results of controlled experiments with over 600 mock juries
involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens.
They find that although juries tended to agree in their moral
judgements about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and
unpredictable dollar awards. Jurors also tended to ignore
instructions from the judges; showed "hindsight bias", believing
that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized
corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit
analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed
better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists)
may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages. With
a wealth of new data and a host of provocative findings, this book
documents a wide range of systematic bias in jury behaviour and
should be valuable for anyone interested in punitive damages, jury
behaviour, human psychology and the theory of punishment.
Decision-making can be difficult and often results in necessary
trade-offs, e.g., safety versus price in the purchasing of an
automobile. This work provides a model of trade-off difficulty,
focusing on its antecedents and consequences. The authors advance a
new framework for the integration of the emotional and cognitive
aspects of decision-making and argue that consumers perceive and
appraise their choices in light of their goals and potential coping
strategies.
|
|