Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences1

Abstract

In two experiments the subjects, who included State Circuit Court Judges, assigned a quantitative judgment of blame to hypothetical offenders as a function of level of intention and seriousness of outcome. In accordance with the findings of numerous other investigators using the Intent x Damage paradigm, averaged subjects appeared to follow an adding rule for the integration of intention and outcome damage information. Furthermore, and in keeping with a key methodological purpose of the research, equivalent averaged results were observed whether student subjects made just one judgment of a single Level of Intention x Level of Outcome Damage treatment combination (independent groups design) or multiple judgments of all possible such factorial treatment combinations (repeated measures design). However, statistical analysis of individual students' and individual judges' repeated measures showed that about half of them adopted an adding rule whereas the judgments of others conformed to an intention‐only rule. Some implications of the findings are: (a) in critical respects students' results are quite generalizable since there were no striking student versus judge differences; (b) averaged outcomes conceal important interpretable individual differences in information processing that are highly commensurate for students and judges; and (c) there is thus a defensible and pragmatically desirable economy in the adoption of repeated measures designs for the study of individual persons in such less accessible categories as the Judiciary.