The case for relative plausibility theory: Promising, but insufficient

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2019-01-22 DOI:10.1177/1365712718816749
R. Hastie
{"title":"The case for relative plausibility theory: Promising, but insufficient","authors":"R. Hastie","doi":"10.1177/1365712718816749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Allen and Pardo's Relative Plausibility Model provides a mostly valid descriptive model for the reasoning of fact-finders like American jurors. My major reservations on the project concern the incompleteness of the authors’ review of empirical, behavioral research relevant to their proposal. The merits of the project as a normative model are less satisfying and, again, the review of relevant sources seems incomplete.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"23 1","pages":"134 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712718816749","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816749","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Allen and Pardo's Relative Plausibility Model provides a mostly valid descriptive model for the reasoning of fact-finders like American jurors. My major reservations on the project concern the incompleteness of the authors’ review of empirical, behavioral research relevant to their proposal. The merits of the project as a normative model are less satisfying and, again, the review of relevant sources seems incomplete.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
相对合理性理论的理由:有希望,但不充分
Allen和Pardo的相对合理性模型为美国陪审员等事实调查者的推理提供了一个最有效的描述性模型。我对该项目的主要保留意见涉及作者对与其提案相关的实证、行为研究的审查不完整。该项目作为一个规范性模式的优点不太令人满意,而且对相关来源的审查似乎也不完整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1