Work

On the evaluation of one-sided evidence

Year: 1996

Type: article

Abstract: We examine predictions and judgments of confidence based on one-sided evidence. Some subjects saw arguments for only one side of a legal dispute while other subjects (called ‘jurors’) saw arguments for both sides. Subjects predicted the number of jurors who favored the plaintiff in each case. Subjects who saw only one side made predictions that were biased in favor of that side. Furthermore, they were more confident but generally less accurate than subjects who saw both sides. The results indicate that people do not compensate sufficiently for missing information even when it is painfully obvious that the information available to them is incomplete. A simple manipulation that required subjects to evaluate the relative strength of the opponent's side greatly reduced the tendency to underweigh missing evidence.

Source: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199603)9:1<59::aid-bdm216>3.0.co;2-v

Authors: Lyle A. Brenner, Derek J. Koehler, Amos Tversky

Institution: Stanford University

Language: English

Topic: Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Subfield: General Decision Sciences

Field: Decision Sciences

Domain: Social Sciences

Open Access status: green

Funder: National Institutes of Health

OpenAlex ID: W2145685680

FWCI: 2.764

Cites: 26

Cited by: 127

Related to: 10