Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment.
Abstract
Deux experiences mettent a l'epreuve un modele de prise de decision fonde sur la construction causale de la preuve dans le cas de decisions judiciaires
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The story model of jury decision-making suggests that jurors are actively engaged in a narrative construction of information surrounding a case.
“The story model of jury decision-making (Pennington and Hastie 1992), underpinned by a wealth of empirical support (Pennington and Hastie 1988;Willmott et al. 2018), suggests that jurors are actively engaged in a narrative construction of information surrounding a case.”
From Do Pre-Trial Juror Attitudes Predict Rape Trial Verdict Decisions? Investigating the Role of Rape Myth Beliefs, Contemporary Sexist Attitudes and Sexual Victimization Experiences on Juror Decision-Making (2025) · cites this paper as Pennington and Hastie 1988
Personal inferences and pre-existing attitudes and beliefs are most likely to be incorporated within the stories that jurors construct when key elements surrounding a case are not presented (or available) as evidence.
“Personal inferences and pre-existing attitudes and beliefs are considered most likely to be incorporated within the stories that jurors construct, when key elements surrounding a case are not presented (or available) as evidence (Pennington and Hastie 1988).”
From Do Pre-Trial Juror Attitudes Predict Rape Trial Verdict Decisions? Investigating the Role of Rape Myth Beliefs, Contemporary Sexist Attitudes and Sexual Victimization Experiences on Juror Decision-Making (2025) · cites this paper as Pennington and Hastie 1988
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shafir, E. (1993) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-s · Cited by 1,453 · see citing works
Value from hedonic experience and engagement
Higgins, E. T. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.439 · Cited by 949 · see citing works
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189 · Cited by 761 · see citing works
Self-citationAssociative processes in intuitive judgment
Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004 · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments.
Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/law0000006 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review.
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1022325019080 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., & Woodfield, R. (2018) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.03.004 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2010) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1748-121x.2009.00141.x · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Juror decision-making in cases of rape involving high functioning Autistic persons.
Devine, K., & Mojtahedi, D. (2021) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2021.101714 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Headd, S., & Willmott, D. (2025) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azaf099 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pennington, N., & Hastie, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 1988-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 521-533
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2057279252
- Cited by
- 573
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 339.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
- Keywords
- memory structure, causal explanation, judicial decision-making, legal judgment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
