Significant individual variation is observed in how people reason as jurors At the satisficing end of a continuum we identify, the juror draws on evidence selectively to construct a single story of what happened, with no acknowledgment of discrepant evidence or alternative possibilities A contrasting theory-evidence coordination mode of processing entails construction of multiple theories (story-verdict constellations) that are evaluated against the evidence and against alternatives Individual differences influence task outcome, the satisficing mode being associated with more extreme verdict choices and very high certainty
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronJ. (1985) Rationality and intelligenceNew YorkCambridge University Press.
2.
BaronJ. (1988) Thinkmg and deciding, New YorkCambridgeUniversity Press.
3.
CohenL.J. (1981) Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences4317–331.
4.
GalotuK. (1989) Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoningPsychological Bulletin105331–351.
5.
KuhnD. (1989) Children and adults as intuitive scientistsPsychological Review, 96674–689.
6.
KuhnD. (1991) The skills of argument, New YorkCambridgeUmversity Press.
7.
KuhnD. (1993) Connecting scientific and informal reasoningMerrill-Palmer Quarterly [Special issue on rationality and critical thinking] 39(l), 74–103.
8.
KuhnD.SchaubleL.Garcia-MilaM. (1992) Cross-domain development of scientific reasoningCognition and Instruction9285–327.
9.
KundaZ. (1990) The case for motivated reasoningPsychological Buletin108480–498.
10.
MoshmanD. (in press) Reason, reasons, and reasoning A constructivist account of human rationalityTheory and Psychology.
11.
PenningtonN. (1981) Causal reasoning and decisions The case of juror decisionsUnpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambndge, MA.
12.
PenningtonN.HastieR. (1993) The story model for juror decision makingInHastieR. (Ed), Inside the juror (pp192–221) , New YorkCambndgeUniversity Press.
13.
PerkinsD. (1985) Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoningJournal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571.
14.
RogoffB.LaveJ. (Eds) (1984) Everyday cognition Its development in social contextCambridge, MAHarvard University Press.
15.
SinnottJ. (1989) Everyday problem solving Theory and applicationsNew YorkPraeger.
16.
SmithV. (1991) Prototypes in the courtroom Lay representations of legal conceptsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology61, 857–872.
17.
StembergR.WagnerR. (Eds.) (1986) Practical intelligence Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world, New YorkCambridgeUniversity Press.
18.
VossJ.PerkinsD.SegalJ. (Eds) (1991) Informal reasoning and educationHillsdale, NJErlbaum.
