Despite the importance of damage awards, juries are often at sea about the amounts that should be awarded, with widely differing awards for cases that seem comparable. We tested a new model of damage award decision making by systematically varying the size, context, and meaningfulness of numerical comparisons or anchors. As a result, we were able to elicit large differences in award amounts that replicated for 2 different cases. Although even arbitrary dollar amounts (unrelated to the cases) influenced the size of award judgments, the most consistent effects of numerical anchors were achieved when the amounts were meaningful in the sense that they conveyed the gist of numbers as small or large. Consistent with the model, the ordinal gist of the severity of plaintiff’s damages and defendant’s liability predicted damage awards, controlling for other factors such as motivation for the award-judgment task and perceived economic damages. Contrary to traditional dual-process approaches, numeracy and cognitive style (e.g., need for cognition and cognitive reflection) were not significant predictors of these numerical judgments, but they were associated with lower levels of variability once the gist of the judgments was taken into account. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Children's testimony is often the only evidence of alleged abuse. Thus, the importance of conducting forensic interviews that are free from bias and misleading information is immense, as these could lead to false reports. In the current paper, we review unexpected findings in children's suggestibility that illustrate the difficulty in distinguishing between false and accurate reports. We explore situations in which a younger person's memory account may be more accurate than that of an adult, when a single suggestive interview may be as detrimental as multiple interviews, and when children can make inaccurate reports spontaneously. We conclude with recommendations for interviewers to decrease false reporting by both children and adults.

In this chapter, we review evidence from the human factors literature that verbal and visual formats can help increase the understanding of numerical risk information in health care. These visual representations of risk are grounded in empirically supported theory. As background, we first review research showing that people often have difficulty understanding numerical risks and benefits in health information. In particular, we discuss how understanding the meanings of numbers results in healthier decisions. Then, we discuss the processes that determine how communication of numerical risks can enhance (or degrade) health judgments and decisions. Specifically, we examine two different approaches to risk communication: a traditional approach and fuzzy-trace theory. Applying research on the complications of understanding and communicating risks, we then highlight how different visual representations are best suited to communicating different risk messages (i.e., their gist). In particular, we review verbal and visual messages that highlight gist representations that can better communicate health information and improve informed decision making. This discussion is informed by human factors theories and methods, which involve the study of how to maximize the interaction between humans and the tools they use. Finally, we present implications and recommendations for future research on human factors in health care.

No abstract

102 Cornell Law Review 1401 (2017)One primary goal of criminal law is to produce justice. In order to obtain justice, the citizens of a republic delegate power to representatives, who then create a system of rules and punishment that ensure a predictable and fair scheme of justice. Although the citizens willingly give over this power to receive the benefits of a structured society, this exchange does not mean that the democratic government must function unchecked by its people. Within the criminal justice system, the jury serves as one protection against government overreach and as a safeguard to ensure that true justice is done. In order to produce that justice, sometimes the jury must abandon the strict rules of the legal system. This behavior is referred to as jury nullification and generally occurs when jurors vote to acquit a defendant despite believing that the defendant is guilty under the law and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Because jury deliberations are secret, jurors have the inescapable power to nullify. Nevertheless, in Sparf v. United States, the Supreme Court held that there is no right to jury nullification and, thus, a judge does not have to instruct the jury about their ability to judge the law.