Inside the Judicial Mind

By C. Guthrie, J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich. 2001

438 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making (2019, result): “There are several indications that our results accord with real-world outcomes, however: judges su er from many of same cognitive illusions as other people [38], are skeptical about the bene ts of algorithms [10, 11], and exhibit disparate interactions when using risk assessments [1, 16].”
The Dynamic Evolution of Preferences (2007, background): “For example, people are frequently overconfident, with voluminous evidence suggesting that the ranks of the overconfident include judges (Guthrie et al. 2001), psychologists (Oskamp 1965), physicians (ChristensenSzalanski and Bushyhead 1981), engineers (Kidd 1970), entrepreneurs (Camerer and…”
Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims (2006, background): “Second, awareness of the litigation outcome may have biased reviewers toward finding errors in claims that received compensation and vice versa (29, 30).”
Confidence Enhanced Performance (2004, methodology): “Chris Guthrie et al. (2001) distributed a questionnaire to 168 federal magistrate judges as part of the Federal Judicial Center’s Workshop for Magistrate Judges II in New Orleans in November 1999.”
A Model of Positive Self-Image in Subjective Assessments (2005, background): “Guthrie, Rachlinski, and Wistrich [19] asked United States magistrate judges who attended a workshop to respond to the following question:”