AI, Decision Science, and Psychological Theory in Decisions about People: A Case in Jury Selection

By Lachman, Roy | AI Magazine, Spring 1998 | Go to article overview

AI, Decision Science, and Psychological Theory in Decisions about People: A Case in Jury Selection


Lachman, Roy, AI Magazine


Significant progress has been reported by AI researchers in combining decision-analytic techniques with knowledge-based expert systems. Historically, the most common AI methods for inference and decision making involved inquiry that was conducted in isolation from associated fields of study. The limitations of this approach have been examined, with the result that the methodologies of decision making under uncertainty are under continuing evaluation and are being incorporated into knowledge-based systems (Henrion, Breese, and Horvitz 1991). Applications that combine decision-theoretic approaches with expert systems include medical diagnosis, product development, system troubleshooting, and various tasks involving candidate evaluation (Durkin 1993; Mitri 1991). Overall, AI and decision-theoretic methods in combination produce superior results than either alone. Although the applications address some socially and financially significant domains that require the prediction Of human behavior, there are still many pressing problems for which AI theory, concepts, and methodology provide potentially powerful solutions, yet AI methods are not currently being tested or extended for application to these problem areas.

This situation is regrettable, given the increasing maturity and coherence of the foundational paradigm of AI science that is reflected in changes in the field's presuppositions. Previously, AI systems were generally treated as single-agent entities working in isolation from the world and other agents; recently, the discipline has begun to adopt the more productive assumption that AI is one of a group of intelligent agents working in collaboration. This presuppositional shift is reflected in two recent presidential addresses to the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Grosz 1996; Bobrow 1991). Daniel Bobrow, in his address, presented an illuminating analysis of three interactive dimensions of intelligent agents: (1) communication, (2) coordination, and (3) integration. Various human and machine agents, even with effective training or modification, can only do each of the three types of activity described by Bobrow with differing levels of skill and effectiveness. The result is varying degrees of success in the resulting decisions made or problems undertaken. Barbara Grosz suggested that collaboration is central to intelligent behavior. She also showed that the processes and capabilities needed for collaborative efforts must be designed into an interactive system from the beginning of the design process. The juror-evaluation system, described here, bears testimony to the wisdom of this view.

There is another important dimension to collaborative efforts -- the intelligent allocation of function. Effective collaboration, of course, requires that tasks be assigned to the agent best qualified to accomplish them. The analytic procedures developed for performance and task analysis in industrial-organizational psychology (Campbell, Gasser, and Oswald 1996; Clegg et al. 1996; Borman and Motowidlo 1993; Goldstein, Zedeck, and Schneider 1993; Ash 1988; McCormick and Jeanerett 1988) and in cognitive psychology and human factors (Howell 1991; Jonassen, Hannum, and Tessmer 1989; McCormick 1979) suggest possible methods for the allocation of tasks among agents.

This article reports on a research program designed to incorporate decision-theoretic models into a knowledge-based system for jury selection using collaborative allocation of function. Only a machine can process and integrate large amounts of demographic and attitudinal data about a prospective juror. Only a person can recognize the meanings of unanticipated responses of other people and identify the significance of these responses. The domain was selected initially for reasons of importance, convenience, and anticipated feasibility.(2) The proper selection and composition of jury panels, for almost a millennium, has been viewed as essential to a fair trial and a rational verdict; the problem is important. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

AI, Decision Science, and Psychological Theory in Decisions about People: A Case in Jury Selection
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.