The paradox of conviction probability: Mock defendants want better deals as risk of conviction increases.
The paradox of conviction probability: Mock defendants want better deals as risk of conviction increases.
复制标题
定罪概率的悖论：随着定罪风险的增加，模拟被告希望获得更好的交易。
DOI：
10.1037/lhb0000432
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Tina M. Zottoli
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jennifer M Bartlett;Tina M. Zottoli
目的：我们研究了定罪的可能性如何影响模拟被告人将接受的最高认罪判决。假设：根据前景理论（Kahneman & Tversky，1979），我们假设，相对于审判的期望值，随着定罪概率的增加，参与者需要越来越好的判决，当概率很低时，参与者会接受比审判的期望值更差的判决。方法：我们在一系列三个受试者之间的实验中操纵了定罪概率和潜在的审判判决，亚马逊土耳其机器人参与者被分配到有罪被告的角色。大多数参与者为白色（75-82%）和非西班牙裔（92-94%）;约一半（45-51%）为女性。研究1（N = 681）探讨了定罪概率（0.05，0.15，0.50，0.85，0.90）和潜在审判判决（5，20年）对认罪交换所接受的最高刑期的影响。研究2（N = 343; X年龄= 37.5）澄清了研究1的结果，即两个潜在审判判决（5年，10年）的概率上限。研究3（N = 1,035; X年龄= 37.6）重复了概率（0.05、0.10、0.15、0.50、0.85、0.90）和潜在审判判决（5年、10年）的影响。结果如下：在所有三项研究中，随着定罪概率的增加，参与者希望获得越来越好的交易（相对于审判的预期价值）。例如，在研究3中，当定罪概率为0.90时，认罪判决平均比审判预期值好58%;相反，当概率为0.05时，判决接近审判预期值的4倍是可以接受的。结论：最常用的认罪决策模型，审判的阴影（SOT）（Mnookin & Kornhauser，1979），假设定罪概率和认罪判决之间的直接和恒定的线性关系。相比之下，我们的数据表明，定罪概率影响模拟被告对认罪要约的评估的方式可能会在概率谱上发生变化。这些结果可以促进发展一个更全面的模式认罪决策。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021阿帕，保留所有权利）。
Objective: We examined how probability of conviction affects the maximum plea sentence mock defendants will accept. Hypothesis: Relying on Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), we hypothesized that, relative to the expected value of trial, participants would need increasingly better sentences as conviction probability increased and would settle for sentences worse than the expected value of trial when probability was very low. Method: We manipulated conviction probability and potential trial sentence in a series of three between-subjects experiments, with Amazon Mechanical Turk participants assigned to the role of guilty defendants. Participants were majority White (75-82%) and non-Hispanic (92-94%); approximately half (45-51%) identified as female. Study 1 (N = 681) explored the effects of conviction probability (.05, .15, .50, .85, .90) and potential trial sentence (5, 20 years) on the maximum sentence accepted in exchange for a plea. Study 2 (N = 343; X¯age = 37.5) clarified results of Study 1 for the upper range of probabilities for two potential trial sentences (5, 10 years). Study 3 (N = 1,035; X¯age = 37.6) replicated the effects of probability (.05, .10, .15, .50, .85, .90) and potential trial sentence (5, 10 years). Results: Across all three studies, participants wanted increasingly better deals (relative to the expected value of trial) as conviction probability increased. For example, in Study 3, when probability of conviction was 0.90, plea sentences were, on average, 58% better than the expected value of trial; in contrast, when the probability was 0.05, sentences that were nearly 4 times the expected value of trial were acceptable. Conclusions: The most commonly used model of plea decision-making, Shadow of the Trial (SOT) (Mnookin & Kornhauser, 1979), assumes a direct and constant linear relationship between conviction probability and plea sentence. In contrast, our data suggest that the way conviction probability affects mock defendants' appraisals of plea offers may change across the probability spectrum. These results can facilitate development of a more comprehensive model of plea decision-making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).