Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions. / Bordalo, Pedro; Gennaioli, Nicola; Shleifer, Andrei.

In: The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 44, No. S1, 01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions. / Bordalo, Pedro; Gennaioli, Nicola; Shleifer, Andrei.

In: The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 44, No. S1, 01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Bordalo, P, Gennaioli, N & Shleifer, A 2015, 'Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions', The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 44, no. S1. https://doi.org/10.1086/676007

APA

Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2015). Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions. The Journal of Legal Studies, 44(S1). https://doi.org/10.1086/676007

Vancouver

Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions. The Journal of Legal Studies. 2015 Jan;44(S1). https://doi.org/10.1086/676007

Author

Bordalo, Pedro ; Gennaioli, Nicola ; Shleifer, Andrei. / Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions. In: The Journal of Legal Studies. 2015 ; Vol. 44, No. S1.

BibTeX

@article{83af69a34c184051b89ec0d0b28fdba2,
title = "Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions",
abstract = "We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge's attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence bearing on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.",
author = "Pedro Bordalo and Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer",
year = "2015",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1086/676007",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
journal = "The Journal of Legal Studies",
issn = "0047-2530",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "S1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions

AU - Bordalo, Pedro

AU - Gennaioli, Nicola

AU - Shleifer, Andrei

PY - 2015/1

Y1 - 2015/1

N2 - We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge's attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence bearing on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.

AB - We present a model of judicial decision making in which the judge overweights the salient facts of the case. The context of the judicial decision, which is comparative by nature, shapes which aspects of the case stand out and draw the judge's attention. By focusing judicial attention on such salient aspects of the case, legally irrelevant information can affect judicial decisions. Our model accounts for a range of recent experimental evidence bearing on the psychology of judicial decisions, including anchoring effects in the setting of damages, decoy effects in choice of legal remedies, and framing effects in the decision to litigate. The model also offers a new approach to positive analysis of damage awards in torts.

U2 - 10.1086/676007

DO - 10.1086/676007

M3 - Article

VL - 44

JO - The Journal of Legal Studies

JF - The Journal of Legal Studies

SN - 0047-2530

IS - S1

ER -