Jury decision making and the Story Model: How do deliberation style and evidence order influence the story that juries create?

This study investigated the utility of the Story Model for decision making at the jury level by examining the influence of evidence order and deliberation style on story consistency and guilt. Participants were shown a video-taped trial stimulus and then provided case perceptions including a guilt judgment and a narrative about what occurred during the incident. Participants then deliberated for approximately thirty minutes using either an evidence-driven or verdict-driven deliberation style before again providing case perceptions, including a guilt determination, a narrative about what happened during the incident, and an evidence recognition test. Multi-level regression analyses revealed that evidence order, deliberation style and sample interacted to influence both story consistency measures and guilt. Among students, participants in the verdict-driven deliberation condition formed more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the prosecution presented their case in story-order, while participants in the evidence-driven deliberation condition formed more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the defense's case was presented in story-order. Findings were the opposite among community members, with participants in the verdict-driven deliberation condition forming more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the defense's case was presented in story-order, and participants in the evidence-driven deliberation condition forming more consistent pro-prosecution stories when the prosecution's case was presented in story-order. Additionally several story consistency measures influenced guilt decisions. Thus there is some support for the hypothesis that story consistency mediates the influence of evidence order and deliberation style on guilt decisions.

A fresh look at decision making in international investment choices: Firm international coherence and home-host country relatedness

Understanding how decisions for international investments are made and how this affects the overall pattern of investments and firm’s performance is of particular importance both in strategy and international business research. This dissertation introduced first home-host country relatedness (HHCR) as the degree to which countries are efficiently combined within the investment portfolios of firms. It theorized and demonstrated that HHCR will vary with the motivation for investments along at least two key dimensions: the nature of foreign investments and the connectedness of potential host countries to the rest of the world. Drawing on cognitive psychology and decision-making research, it developed a theory of strategic decision making proposing that strategic solutions are chosen close to a convenient anchor. Building on research on memory imprinting, it also proposed that managers tend to rely on older knowledge representation. In the context of international investment decisions, managers use their home countries as an anchor and are more likely to choose as a site for foreign investments host countries that are ‘close’ to the home country. These decisions are also likely to rely more strongly on closeness to time invariant country factors of historic and geographic nature rather than time-variant institutions. Empirical tests using comprehensive investments data by all public multinational companies (MNC) worldwide, or over 15,000 MNCs with over half a million subsidiaries, support the claims. Finally, the dissertation introduced the concept of International Coherence (IC) defined as the degree to which an MNE’s network comprises countries that are related. It was hypothesized that maintaining a high level of coherence is important for firm performance and will enhance it. Also, the presence of international coherence mitigates some of the negative effects of unrelated product diversification. Empirical tests using data on foreign investments of over 20,000 public firms, while also developing a home-host country relatedness index for up to 24,300 home-host pairs, provided support for the theory advanced.

Modeling the role of investigator bias, interrogation techniques, and suspect decision -making on the likelihood of confession

The purpose of the current study was to attempt to model various cognitive and social processes that are believed to lead to false confessions. More specifically, this study manipulated the variables of experimenter expectancy, guilt-innocence of the suspect, and interrogation techniques using the Russano et al. (2005) paradigm. The primary measure of interest was the likelihood of the participant signing the confession statement. By manipulating experimenter expectancy, the current study sought to further explore the social interactions that may occur in the interrogation room. In addition, in past experiments, the interrogator has typically been restricted to the use of one or two interrogation techniques. In the present study, interrogators were permitted to select from 15 different interrogation techniques when attempting to solicit a confession from participants. ^ Consistent with Rusanno et al. (2005), guilty participants (94%) were more likely to confess to the act of cheating than innocent participants (31%). The variable of experimenter expectancy did not effect confessions rates, length of interrogation, or the type of interrogation techniques used. Path analysis revealed feelings of pressure and the weighing of consequences on the part of the participant were associated with the signing of the confession statement. The findings suggest the guilt/innocence of the participant, the participant's perceptions of the interrogation situation, and length of interrogation play a pivotal role in the signing of the confession statement. Further examination of these variables may provide researchers with a better understanding of the relationship between interrogations and confessions. ^

Examining moderators of the hindsight bias in the context of civil legal decision -making: Counterfactuals, causal proximity, and self -referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. ^ In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. ^ Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.^

Examining Moderators of the Hindsight Bias in the Context of Civil Legal Decision-Making: Counterfactuals, Causal Proximity, and Self-Referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.

Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Decision Making in South Florida

The Greater Everglades system imparts vital ecosystem services (ES) to South Florida residents including high quality drinking water supplies and a habitat for threatened and endangered species. As a result of the altered Everglades system and regional dynamics, restoration may either improve the provision of these services or impose a tradeoff between enhanced environmental goods and services and competing societal demands. The current study aims at understanding public preferences for restoration and generating willingness to pay (WTP) values for restored ES through the implementation of a discrete choice experiment. A previous study (Milon et al., 1999) generated WTP values amongst Floridians of up to $3.42 -$4.07 billion for full restoration over a 10-year period. We have collected data from 2,905 respondents taken from two samples who participated in an online survey designed to elicit the WTP values for selected ecological and social attributes included in the earlier study (Milon et al. 1999). We estimate that the Florida general public is willing to pay up to $854.1- $954.1 million over 10 years to avoid restrictions on their water usage and up to $90.8- $183.7 million over 10 years to restore the hydrological flow within the Water Conservation Area.