Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors.
Top Cited Papers
- 1 January 2002
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Psychological Review
- Vol. 109 (3) , 451-471
- https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.451
Abstract
Research on judgment and choice has been dominated by functionalist assumptions that depict people as either intuitive scientists animated by epistemic goals or intuitive economists animated by utilitarian ones. This article identifies 3 alternative social functionalist starting points for inquiry: people as pragmatic politicians trying to cope with accountability demands from key constituencies in their lives, principled theologians trying to protect sacred values from secular encroachments, and prudent prosecutors trying to enforce social norms. Each functionalist framework stimulates middle-range theories that specify (a) cognitive-affective-behavioral strategies of coping with adaptive challenges and (b) the implications of these coping strategies for identifying empirical and normative boundary conditions on judgmental tendencies classified as errors or biases within the dominant research programs.Keywords
This publication has 79 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessing Punitive Damages (With Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law)The Yale Law Journal, 1998
- Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment QualityOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996
- Testing Credit and Blame Attributions as Explanation for Choices under AmbiguityOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995
- The Effects of Task Characteristics on Covariation Assessment: The Impact of Accountability and Judgment FrameOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1994
- Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort lawJournal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1993
- Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performanceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1992
- The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errorsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1992
- Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidanceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1986
- Does having to justify one's judgments change the nature of the judgment process?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1983
- Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 1981