JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley and Law and Society Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law &Society Review. This article addresses the role of quantitative evidence and methods in trials. Major arguments against the introduction of explicit computation information are considered and contrasted with findings about the characteristics of the unaided human decision maker. Emphasis is given to behavioral decision theory and the heuristic biases it reveals. Consideration is given to the symbolic versus 'truthfinding" functions of trials, mathematical models (especially linear) of decision making, advocacy tactics that follow from what has been learned about how humans process information, the diagnostic value of aggregate probabilities, the notion of particularistic proof, and the evaluation of witness credibility. We conclude that unaided human decision making embodies certain normal and lawful errors, and that the exclusion of mathematical guides to aid a fact finder, while avoiding some problems, exposes the fact-finding process to the heuristic biases of intuitive decision making.
A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effects on help-giving of the perceived intentionality and stability of the cause of a dependent person's need. Subjects were asked to lend class notes to a caller whose need for help was described as due either to a lack of ability ("unintentional" dependency) or to a lack of effort ("intentional" dependency). The cause of the caller's dependency was also varied according to its perceived degree of stability (stable vs. unstable). As predicted, more help was elicited (1) when the caller's dependency was attributed to a lack of ability rather than to a lack Df effort, and (2) when the dependency was seen as stable rather than unstable. The results are discussed in terms of theorizing which has attempted to relate outcome attributions to helping behavior.
This article reviews emotional and cognitive reactions to critninal victimization. It draws connections between the contents of these reactions and tictims' reluctance to report the crime to authorities. Since betweea ~~~ thakkaj all crimes are not so reported. understanding these connections is critical. We argue thar nonreporting I S the result of three,fuctors acting singly or in concert: ( a ) victim fear, (b) feelings of helplessness and the perceived powerlessness of police, and ( c ) the threat of further victimizution ,from authoritieJ. We believe victims react in relativel-y rational ways. Despite the apparent loss of control and the strong fear engendered by the experience, the victimization does not lead people to report it to authorities. Instead, reporting to police is often realistically viewed by victims as ineffective and potentially costly.Are victims reluctant to report crimes committed against them'? The answer, though affirmative, is not an unequivocal yes. A National Crime Survey conducted in 1979, for instance, showed that-onk about30% of all personal crimes and 36% of all 'nst households were made known to t&_pelrce (U.S. Department of Justice, 198 1). There was considerable variation in reporting rates within these broaCI categories. Among offenses against the person, crimes of violence, characterized by an overall reporting rate of 45%, ranged from a 33% rate for assault without a weapon to a high of 66% for robbery with injury from a serious assault. Reporting rates for offenses against property also fluctuated. Whereas 48% of the burglaries were reported, 25% of the household larcenies Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert F.
In this prospective controlled study, thirty-seven migraine and/or tension headache patients and thirty-seven age and sex matched controls were examined for evidence of musculoskeletal dysfunction in the neck. The examination consisted of clinical range of motion testing of neck rotation, sidebending, flexion and extension while in the sitting position. The headache group had more abnormal physical findings than the control group. Although the difference for each particular motion test, taken by itself, was not statistically significant, two or more abnormalities in combination was found to reach a .05 confidence level of significance. It is proposed therefore that musculoskeletal dysfunction of the neck is a contributing factor to the etiology of migraine and tension headache.
Two experiments were conducted to test the influence of cognitive dissonance on helping. Both [Studies employed a modification of the standard, dissonancearousing, counterattitudinal role-playing paradigm and female undergraduates as subjects. For half of the subjects in the first experiment, a mood-enhancing experience was interposed between commitment to an attitude-discrepant (or attitude-congruent) act and an opportunity to help an accident victim. The most helpfulness was elicited in a condition in which dissonant females were given a chance to aid the needy person without an intervening, positive experience. The second experiment replicated this basic finding but failed to show that forced attention to the dissonant cognitions increased aiding. This latter finding called into question the notion that the intervening, mood-related experience in Experiment 1 decreased helpfulness by lessening subjects' awareness of their prior hypocrisy. Similarities between dissonance and transgression experiments were discussed along with theoretical arguments for viewing the dissonance-helping relationship within a framework of threat to self-concept.A growing number of investigations have shown that people are often more helpful after they have committed a transgression, wrongly injuring another (e.g., Carlsmith &
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.