Quantifying an implicit legal threshold and mental representations of ‘Innocent:’ a comparison of implicit and theoretical thresholds for a legal decision

References

• Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crott, H. W., & Werner, J. (1994). The norm–information–distance model: A stochastic approach to preference change in group interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(1), 68–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeKay, M. L. (1996). The difference between Blackstone‐like error ratios and probabilistic standards of proof. Law & Social Inquiry,21(1), 95–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00013.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 14(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, Y., & Park, K. (2017). Sole evidence and legal judgement of lay people: Circular logic and causal inference. The Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(2), 133–151. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/NODE07221447
   Google Scholar
• Han, Y., & Park, K. (2018). Sole evidence and legal judgement of lay people: Overestimated posterior probability and threshold for conviction. The Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9(1), 1–19. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/NODE07408747
   Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2011). To dollars from sense: Qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(s1), 120–147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01233.x
   Google Scholar
• Hastie, R. (Ed.). (1993). Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision-making. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752896
   Google Scholar
• Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865945
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior,20(6), 655–670. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499236
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Reasonable doubt instructions. Commonsense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2/3), 285–302. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.285
   Google Scholar
• Hume, C., Ball, K., & Salmon, J. (2006). Development and reliability of a self-report questionnaire to examine children’s perceptions of the physical activity environment at home and in the neighbourhood. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3(1), 16. Article No. 16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-16
   Google Scholar
• Huntley, J. E., & Costanzo, M. (2003). Sexual harassment stories: Testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674811225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• innocent. (2021). In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent#legalDictionary
   Google Scholar
• Kagan, J. (1989). Unstable ideas: Temperament, cognition, and self. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science,1(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior,9(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, J. (1968). Decision theory and the fact-finding process. Stanford Law Review, 20(6), 1065–1092. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1227491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37(10), 1877–1887. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, S. R., & Wiener, R. L. (2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(3), 376–394. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. (1993). Stochastic models of juror decision-making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision-making (pp. 116–135). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752896.007
   Google Scholar
• Korean Supreme Court. (1991). 91Do1385, delivered on August 13, 1991
   Google Scholar
• Lundrigan, S., Dhami, M. K., & Mueller‐Johnson, K. (2016). Predicting verdicts using pre‐trial attitudes and standard of proof. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, A. W., & Schum, D. A. (1987). Quantifying burdens of proof: A likelihood ratio approach. Jurimetrics Journal, 27, 383–402.
   Google Scholar
• Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, J. W. (1998). The criminal standard of proof. New Law Journal, 582–584.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, P. J., & Gump, B. B. (1995). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(24), 2158–2179. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01831.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller-Johnson, K., Dhami, M. K., & Lundrigan, S. (2018). Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1394461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen-Fulero, L., & Fulero, S. M. (1997). Commonsense rape judgments: An empathy–complexity theory of rape juror story making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2–3), 402–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.2–3.402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 246–287. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making (pp. 192–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752896.010
   Google Scholar
• Phares, V., Compas, B. E., & Howell, D. C. (1989). Perspectives on child behavior problems: Comparisons of children’s self-reports with parent and teacher reports. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 68–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.68
   Google Scholar
• Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 159–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022368801333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1993). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the Juror: The psychology of juror decision-making (pp. 136–174). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752896.008
   Google Scholar
• Simon, R. J. (1970). “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”-An Experimental Attempt At Quantification. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(2), 203–209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637000600205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors’ use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(1), 49–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Iowa State Univ. Press Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Spottswood, M. (2014). Bridging the gap between Bayesian and story-comparison models of juridical inference. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgt010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallon, J., & Groscup, J. (2016). Theoretical models of jury decision-making. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes (pp. 63–88). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315590790–3
   Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D., & Greene, E. (2012). Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages. Behavioral sciences & the law, 30(6), 856–872. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a “reasonable doubt” instructions affects decision of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D. B., Strubler, K. A., & Vallano, J. P. (2011). Statistical techniques for juror and jury research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(1), 90–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X487655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander, M. (2000). The criminal standard of proof – How sure is sure? New Law Journal, 150, 1517–1519.
   Google Scholar