En esta investigación se analiza el papel de cómo se representa la evidencia en el proceso de decisión de un miembro de un jurado. Se presenta asimismo un modelo que incorpora una primera etapa inicial de procesamiento en la que se generan ciertas representaciones cognitivas de la evidencia bajo la forma de una historia. Esta etapa inicial viene seguida del cálculo de la decisión evaluando la bondad de ajuste de la representación de la evidencia (la historia) a los distintos tipos de veredicto. Cada uno de los sujetos, extraídos de listas de jurados, proporcionaba su veredicto sobre un juicio de asesinato que se presentaba filmado. A través de una entrevista en profundidad con cada uno de los jurados se obtenían los datos necesarios para el análisis de sus representaciones cognitivas de la evidencia del caso, de los tipos de veredicto presentados en las instrucciones del juez, y de los procedimientos que hubieron de seguir de acuerdo con la ley para llegar a un veredicto final. De acuerdo con nuestra hipótesis, hallamos que la evidencia del juicio se representaba bajo la forma de una historia. Además, las diferencias que se obtuvieron entre jurados respecto de sus representaciones cognitivas se correlacionaron con sus veredictos, aunque otros aspectos del proceso de decisión se correlacionaran (las representaciones de los distintos tipos de veredicto, y la aplicación de las instrucciones respecto del procedimiento para la evaluación de las pruebas). Terminamos concluyendo que una teoría apropiada de la toma de decisiones debe prestar atención a aquellos aspectos cognitivos de la tarea, como por ejemplo los que afectan a la representación de la evidencia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN. H. (1959). Test of a model for opinion change.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, pp. 371–381.
2.
AxelrodR. Comp.) (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites.Princeton, NJ: Priceton University Press.
3.
BennettiW. L.FeldmanM. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
BowerG. H.BlackJ. B.TurnerT. J. (1979). Scriptis in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology, 11, pp. 177–220.
5.
BrownJ. S.BurtonR. R.De KleetJ. (1982). Pedagogical, natural language, and knowledge engineering techniques in SOPHIE I, II and III. EnSleemanD.BrownJ. S.Intelligent tutoring systems.London: Academic Press.
6.
BrownR.FishD. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language.Cognition, 14, pp. 237–273.
7.
CollinsA. M. (1978). Fragments of a theory of human plausible reasoning. EnWaltzD.Proceeding of the Conference on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing II.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
8.
CollinsA. M. (1979). Studies of plausible reasoning (Report No. 3810). Cambridge. MA: Bolt. Beranek, and Newman.
9.
CollinsA. M.WarnockE. H.AielloN.MillerM. L. (1975). Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. EnBobrowD. G.CollinsA. M.Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science.Nueva York: Academic Press.
10.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. M. (1982). Prediction, diagnosis, and causal thinking in forecasting.Journal of Forecasting, 1, pp. 23–36.
11.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference.Psychological Review, 92, pp. 433–461.
12.
GoodmanS. E.HedetniemiS. T. (1979). A descriptive introduction to graph theory and some of its applications. EnSedelowW. A.SedelowS. Y.Computers in language research.The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
13.
GraesserA. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word.Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.
14.
GraesserA. C.GoodmanS. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering and the representation of expository text. EnBrittonB. K.BlackJ. B.Understanding expository text.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
HastieR.PenrodS.PenningtonN. (1983). Inside the jury Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HutchinsE. (1980). Culture and inference.Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
JonesE. E.DavisK. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. EnBerkowitzL.Advances in esperimental social psychology (Volume 2, pp. 229–266) Nueva York: Academic Press.
18.
KaplanJ. (1978); Criminal justice: Introductory cases and materials.Mineola. NY: Foundation Press.
19.
KaplanM. F. (1975). Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of judge and informational components. EnKaplanM. F.SchwartzS.Human judgment and decision processes.Nueva York: Academic Press.
20.
KaplanM. F.KemmerickG. D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, pp. 493–499.
21.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist, 28, pp. 107–128.
22.
KerrN. L. (1978a). Beautiful and blameless: Effects of victim attractiveness and responsibility on mock juror's verdicts.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, pp. 470–482.
23.
KerrN. L. (1978b). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock juror's verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, pp. 1431–1442.
24.
KintschW. (1975). Memory representations of text. EnSolsoR. L.Information processing and cognition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
KintschW.Van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, pp. 363–394.
26.
LopesL. L. (1982). Toward a procedural theory of judgment. Manuscrito inédito. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
27.
MandlerJ. M. (1980). Categorical and schematic organization in memory. EnPuffC. R. (comp.): Memory organization and structure.Nueva York: Academic Press.
28.
MandlerJ. M.JohnsonN. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall.Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp. 111–151.
29.
MarshallC. R.WiseJ. A. (1975). Joror decisions and the determination of guilt in capital punishment cases: A Bayesian perspective. EnWendtD.VlekC.Utility, probability and human decision making.Dordrect, Holland: Reidel.
30.
OostromT. M.WernerC.SaksM. J. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors' presumptions of guilt or innocence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:36, pp. 436–450.
31.
PenningtonN. (1979). Juror decision making. The relevance of Piaget's developmental theory to a complex adult reasoning task. Qualifying. Paper, Harvard University.
32.
PenningtonN. (1981). Causal reasoning and decision making, the case of juror decisions. Tesis doctoral inédita. Harvard Universty.
33.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1980, June). Representation and inference in juror reasoning: Two illustrative analyses. Comunicación presentada al encuentro anual de la Cognitive Science Society. Nueva Haven, CT.
34.
PewnningtonN.HastieR. (1981a). Juror decision making models: The generalization gap.Psychological Bulletin, 89, pp. 246–287.
35.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1981b). Juror decision making. Story structure and verdict choice. Comunicación presentada al encuentro de la American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
36.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1985). Causal reasoning in decision making. Manuescrito inédito, University of Chicago.
37.
PopleH. E.JR. (1982). Heuristic methods for imposing structure on ill-structured problems: The structuring of medical diagnostic. EnSzolovitsP.Artificial intelligence in mediane.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
38.
RipsL. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, pp. 665–681.
39.
RoschE.MervisC. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 573–605.
40.
RumelhartD. E. (1975). Note on a scherma for stories. EnBobrowD.CollinsA.Representation, and understanding.Nueva York: Academic Press.
41.
RumelhartD. E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. EnLabergeD.SamuelsS. J.Basic processes in reading Perception and comprenhension.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
RumelhartD. E.AbrahamsonA. A. (1973). A model for analogical reasoning.Cognitive Psychology, 5, pp. 1–28.
43.
RanM. P.HurtigR. R. (1980). Does the structure of the evidence base cause verdicts of guilty or innocent?Discourse proceses, 3, pp. 221–261.
44.
SchankR. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural languaje understading.Cognitive Psychology, J, pp. 552–631.
45.
SchankR. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. EnBobrowD. G.CollinsA.Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science.Nueva York: Academic Press.
46.
SchankR. CAbelsonR. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47.
SchumD. A. (1975). The weighing of testimony in judicial proceedings from sources having reduced credibility.Human Factors, 17, pp. 172–182.
48.
SchumD. A. (1977). The behavioral richness of cascaded inference models: Examples of jurisprudence. EnCastellanN. J.PisoniD. B.PottsG. R.Cognitive theory (Volumen 2, pp. 149–173). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49.
SchumD. A.DucarmeW. M. (1971). Comments on the relation-ship between the impact and the reliability of evidence.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, pp. 111–131.
50.
SchumD. A.MartinA. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence.Law and Society Reivew, 17, pp. 105–151.
51.
SchumD. A.PfeifferP. E. (1973). Observer reliability and human inference.IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 22, pp. 170–176.
52.
SteinN. L.GlennC. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. EnFreedleR. O.New directions in discourse processing (Volumen 2, pp. 83–107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
53.
SvensonO. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, pp. 86–112.
54.
ThomasE. A. C.HogueA. (1976). Apparent weight of evidence, criteria and confidence ratings in juror decision making.Psychological Review, 83, pp. 442–465.
55.
ThorndykeP. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp. 77–110.
56.
TrabassoT.SeccoT.VanDENBroekP. (1982). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, y T. Trabasso (Comps.).Learning and comprenhension of text.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84, pp. 327–352.
58.
TverskyA.GatiI. (1978). Studies of similarity. EnRoschE.LloydB. B.Cognition and categorization.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 211, pp. 1124–1131.
60.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review, 90, pp. 293–315.
61.
WeldH. P.DanzipE. R. (1940). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury.American Journal of Psychology, 90, pp. 518–536.
62.
WeldH. P.RoffM. (1938). A study in the formation of opinion based upon legal evidence.American Journal of Psychology, 51, pp. 609–628.
63.
WlgmoreJ. H. (1937). The science of judicial proof.Boston: Little. Brown.
64.
WilksY. (1977). What sort of taxonomy of causation do we need for language understanding?Cognitive Science, 1, pp. 235–264.
