Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-w9n4q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T19:53:09.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Eye-Tracking as a Method for Legal Research

from Part II - Introductions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2025

By
Christoph Engel  and
Rima-Maria Rahal
Edited by
Kevin Tobia
Kevin Tobia
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Legal research is a repeat offender – in the best sense of the term – when it comes to making use of empirical and experimental methods borrowed from other disciplines. We anticipate that the field’s response to developments in eye-tracking research will be no different. Our aim is to aid legal researchers in the uptake of eye-tracking as a method to address questions related to cognitive processes involved in matters of law abidance, legal intervention, and the generation of new legal rules. We discuss methodological challenges of empirically studying thinking and reasoning as the mechanisms underlying behavior and introduce eye-tracking as our method of choice for obtaining high-resolution traces of visual attention. We delineate advantages and challenges of this methodological approach, and outline which concepts legal researchers can hope to measure with a toy example. We conclude by outlining some of the various research avenues in legal research for which we predict a benefit from adopting eye-tracking to their methodological toolbox.

Keywords

methodseye-trackingcognitionprocess tracing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence , pp. 329 - 359
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agoglia, Christopher P., Doupnik, Timothy S., and Tsakumis, George T.. 2011. “Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards. The Influence of Standard Precision and Audit Committee Strength on Financial Reporting Decisions.” Accounting Review 86 (3): 747–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ales, Francesca, Giromini, Luciano, Warmelink, Lara, Polden, Megan, Wilcockson, Thomas, Kelly, Claire, Winters, Christina, Zennaro, Alessandro, and Crawford, Trevor. 2021. “An Eye Tracking Study on Feigned Schizophrenia.” Psychological Injury and Law 14 (3): 213–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelovski, Andrej, Cagno, Daniela Di, Güth, Werner, Marazzi, Francesca, and Panaccione, Luca. 2018. “Does Heterogeneity Spoil the Basket? The Role of Productivity and Feedback Information on Public Good Provision.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 77: 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armel, K. Carrie, Beaumel, Aurelie, and Rangel, Antonio. 2008. “Biasing Simple Choices by Manipulating Relative Visual Attention.” Judgment and Decision Making 3 (5): 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayton, Peter. 2005. “Judgement and Decision Making.” In Cognitive Psychology, edited by Braisby, Nick and Gellatly, Angus, 382–413. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, John Hamilton. 2019. An Introduction to English Legal History. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawden, David, and Robinson, Lyn. 2021. “Information Overload. An Overview.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Decision Making, edited by Redlawsk, David P.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, Jackson. 1982. “Task-Evoked Pupillary Responses, Processing Load, and the Structure of Processing Resources.” Psychological Bulletin 91: 276–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, Gary Stanley. 1968. “Crime and Punishment. An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Nathan, and Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2010. “As-If Behavioral Economics: Neoclassical Economics in Disguise?” History of Economic Ideas 18 (1): 133–65. https://doi.org/10.1400/140334.Google Scholar
Birks, Peter, and Pretto-Sakmann, Arianna. 2002. Breach of Trust. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Björklund, Daniel. 2018. “Drilling the Mirror Routine. From Non‐situated Looking to Mobile Practice in Driver Training.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 226–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Gary D. 2008. “Deception Detection Expertise.” Law and Human Behavior 32 (4): 339–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braman, Eileen, and Nelson, Thomas E.. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 940–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlando, Roberto M., and Guala, Francesco. 2005. “Heterogeneous Agents in Public Goods Experiments.” Experimental Economics 8: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Catherine J. 2017. “In the Eyes of the Law Student. Determining Reading Patterns with Eye-Tracking Technology.” Rutgers Law Record 45: 39–64.Google Scholar
Carbonara, Emanuela. 2017. “Law and Social Norms.” In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, edited by Parisi, Francesco, 466–82. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, James F., Wiecki, Thomas V., Kochar, Angad, and Frank, Michael J.. 2014. “Eye Tracking and Pupillometry Are Indicators of Dissociable Latent Decision Processes.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 143 (4): 1476–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, Kenneth S., Mestelman, Stuart, Moir, Robert, and Muller, R. Andrew. 1999. “Heterogeneity and the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods.” Experimental Economics 2 (1): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Rong-Chi and Tsai, Meng-Jung 2022. “Visual Behavior Patterns of Successful Decision Makers in Crime Scene Photo Investigation. An Eye Tracking Analysis.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 67 (3): 1072–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, Jonathan H. 2022. “Computational Corpus Linguistics.” https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:250639652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinelli, Matteo, Morales, Gianmarco De Francisci, Galeazzi, Alessandro, Quattrociocchi, Walter, and Starnini, Michele. 2021. “The Echo Chamber Effect on Social Media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (9): e2023301118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbetta, Maurizio, and Shulman, Gordon L.. 2002. “Control of Goal-Directed and Stimulus-Driven Attention in the Brain.” Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 3 (3): 201–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, Rick, Kehoe, Caitlin, and Spivey, Michael J.. 2007. “Graded Motor Responses in the Time Course of Categorizing Atypical Exemplars.” Memory & Cognition 35 (1): 15–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmet, Pieter, and Engel, Christoph. 2021. “People Are Conditional Rule Followers.” Journal of Economic Psychology 85: 102384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, Andrew. 2007. Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Pollack, Mark A.. 2013. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald M. 1977. The Philosophy of Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore. 2011. “The Origins, Nature, and Promise of Empirical Legal Studies and a Response to Concerns.” University of Illinois Law Review 2011 (5): 1713–38.Google Scholar
Engel, Christoph. 2007. “Herrschaftsausübung bei offener Wirklichkeitsdefinition. Das Proprium des Rechts aus der Perspektive des Öffentlichen Rechts.” In Das Proprium der Rechtswissenschaft, edited by Engel, Christoph and Schön, Wolfgang, 205–40. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Engel, Christoph. 2009. “Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction. A Behavioral Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law.” Vermont Law Review 33: 435–67.Google Scholar
Engel, Christoph. 2015. “Tacit Collusion. The Neglected Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12: 537–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph. 2020. “Estimating Heterogeneous Reactions to Experimental Treatments.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 178: 124–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph, and Glöckner, Andreas. 2013. “Role Induced Bias in Court. An Experiment.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26: 272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph, and Kurschilgen, Michael. 2020. “The Fragility of a Nudge. The Power of Self-Set Norms to Contain a Social Dilemma.” Journal of Economic Psychology 81: 102293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph, Timme, Sinika, and Glöckner, Andreas. 2020. “Coherence-Based Reasoning and Order Effects in Legal Judgments.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 26: 333–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Christoph, and Weber, Elke. 2007. “The Impact of Institutions on the Decision How to Decide.” Journal of Institutional Economics 3: 323–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, Ward. 1999. “Do Parties to Nuisance Cases Bargain after Judgement ? A Glimpse into the Cathedral.” University of Chicago Law Review 66: 373–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Yuval. 2018. The Law of Good People. Challenging States’ Ability to Regulate Human Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frakes, Michael, and Jena, Anupam B.. 2016. “Does Medical Malpractice Law Improve Health Care Quality?” Journal of Public Economics 143: 142–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, Lawrence M. 1986. “The Law and Society Movement.” Stanford Law Review 38 (3): 763–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geistfeld, Mark A. 2011. “The Coherence of Compensation-Deterrence Theory in Tort Law.” DePaul Law Review 61: 383–418.Google Scholar
Girvan, Erik J. 2016. “Wise Restraints?: Learning Legal Rules, Not Standards, Reduces the Effects of Stereotypes in Legal Decision-Making.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 22 (1): 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Markus, Iliewa, Zwetelina, and Weber, Martin. 2019. “Thinking about Prices versus Thinking about Returns in Financial Markets.” Journal of Finance 74 (6): 2997–3039.Google Scholar
Glöckner, Andreas, and Betsch, Tilmann. 2008. “Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34 (5): 1055–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1055.Google ScholarPubMed
Glöckner, Andreas, and Engel, Christoph. 2013. “Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence Based Reasoning.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10: 230–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godet, Tony, and Niveau, Gérard. 2021. “Eye Tracking and Child Sexual Offenders. A Systematic Review.” Forensic Sciences Research 6 (2): 133–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldie, Peter. 2018. “Misleading Emotions.” In Epistemology and Emotions, edited by Brun, Georg and Doguoglu, Ulvi, 149–65. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Golman, Russell, and Loewenstein, George. 2018. “Information Gaps: A Theory of Preferences Regarding the Presence and Absence of Information.” Decision 5 (3): 143–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwinn, Rachael, Leber, Andrew B., and Krajbich, Ian. 2019. “The Spillover Effects of Attentional Learning on Value-Based Choice.” Cognition 182: 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hehman, Eric, Stolier, Ryan M., and Freeman, Jonathan B.. 2015. “Advanced Mouse-Tracking Analytic Techniques for Enhancing Psychological Science.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 18 (3): 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214538325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner. 1927. “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik.” Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (3): 172–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Alfred. 1973. “Damages for Innocent Misrepresentation.” Columbia Law Review 73: 679–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Nyström, Marcus, Andersson, Richard, Dewhurst, Richard, Jarodzka, Halszka, and van de Weijer, Joost. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, Keith J., and Simon, Dan. 1999. “Bidirectional Reasoning in Decision Making by Constraint Satisfaction.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128: 1–29.Google Scholar
Huettig, Falk, Olivers, Christian N. L., and Hartsuiker, Robert J.. 2011. “Looking, Language, and Memory: Bridging Research from the Visual World and Visual Search Paradigms.” Acta Psychologica 137 (2): 138–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhta, Juha-Matti, Di Nota, Paula M., Surakka, Veikko, Isokoski, Poika, and Ropo, Eero. 2022. “Experience-Dependent Effects to Situational Awareness in Police Officers. An Eye Tracking Study.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (9): 5047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacques, Scott, Lasky, Nicole, and Fisher, Bonnie S.. 2015. “Seeing the Offenders’ Perspective through the Eye-Tracking Device: Methodological Insights from a Study of Shoplifters.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31 (4): 449–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janisse, Michel P. 1974. “Pupil Size, Affect and Exposure Frequency.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 2: 125–46. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1974.2.2.125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Eric J., and Goldstein, Daniel. 2003. “Do Defaults Save Lives?” Science 302: 1338–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, Marcel Adam, and Carpenter, Patricia A.. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87: 329–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplow, Louis. 1992. “Rules versus Standards. An Economic Analysis.” Duke Law Journal 42: 557–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajbich, Ian, Armel, Carrie, and Rangel, Antonio. 2010. “Visual Fixations and the Computation and Comparison of Value in Simple Choice.” Nature Neuroscience 13 (10): 1292–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajbich, Ian, Bartling, Björn, Hare, Todd, and Fehr, Ernst. 2015. “Rethinking Fast and Slow Based on a Critique of Reaction-Time Reverse Inference.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 7455. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajbich, Ian, Lu, Dingchao, Camerer, Colin, and Rangel, Antonio. 2012. “The Attentional Drift-Diffusion Model Extends to Simple Purchasing Decisions.” Frontiers in Psychology 3: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajbich, Ian, and Smith, Stephanie M.. 2015. “Modeling Eye Movements and Response Times in Consumer Choice.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 13 (1): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2015-0016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108: 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, Paul. 2011. “Eyeing the Supreme Court’s Challenge. A Proposal to Use Eye Tracking to Determine the Effects of Television Courtroom Broadcasting.” Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal 1: 277–306.Google Scholar
Lamme, Victor A. F. 2003. “Why Visual Attention and Awareness Are Different.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (1): 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langevoort, Donald C. 1997. “Organized Illusions. A Behavioral Theory of Why Corporations Mislead Stock Market Investors (and Cause Other Social Harms).” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146: 101–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levmore, Saul. 1987. “Variety and Uniformity in the Treatment of the Good-Faith Purchaser.” Journal of Legal Studies 16 (1): 43–65.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2003. “The Cognitive Side of Governance.” In The Governance of Relations in Markets and Organizations, edited by Buskens, Vincent, Raub, Werner, and Snijders, Chris, 47–76. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Logan, Ian Taylor. 2018. “For Sale. Window to the Soul Eye Tracking as the Impetus for Federal Biometric Data Protection.” Penn State Law Review 123: 779–812.Google Scholar
Mansour, Jamal K., and Flowe, Heather. 2010. “Eye Tracking and Eyewitness Memory.”Forensic Update 1 (101): 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matin, E. 1974. “Saccadic Suppression: A Review and an Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 81 (12): 899–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meißner, Martin, Pfeiffer, Jella, Pfeiffer, Thies, and Oppewal, Harmen. 2019. “Combining Virtual Reality and Mobile Eye Tracking to Provide a Naturalistic Experimental Environment for Shopper Research.” Journal of Business Research 100 (July): 445–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Kornhauser, Lewis A.. 1979. “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law.” Yale Law Journal 88: 950–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monahan, John, and Skeem, Jennifer L.. 2016. “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 12: 489–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mummolo, Jonathan, and Peterson, Erik. 2018. “Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment.” American Political Science Review 113: 517–29.Google Scholar
Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century.” Crime and Justice 23: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Wilson, Timothy D.. 1977. “Telling More than We Can Know. Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review 84 (3): 231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noton, David, and Stark, Lawrence. 1971. “Scanpaths in Saccadic Eye Movements While Viewing and Recognizing Patterns.” Vision Research 11 (9): 929–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(71)90213-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orquin, Jacob L., and Mueller Loose, Simone. 2013. “Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making.” Acta Psychologica 144 (1): 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John W. 1976. “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2): 366–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John W., Bettman, James R., and Johnson, Eric J.. 1988. “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14: 534–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534.Google Scholar
Payne, John W., and Braunstein, Myron L.. 1978. “Risky Choice: An Examination of Information Acquisition Behavior.” Memory & Cognition 6: 554–61. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, Michael I. 1980. “Orienting of Attention.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32 (1): 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, Richard A. 2014. Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed. New York, USA: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Rahal, Rima-Maria, and Fiedler, Susann. 2019. “Understanding Cognitive and Affective Mechanisms in Social Psychology through Eye-Tracking.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (November): 103842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger, and Smith, Philip L. 2004. “A Comparison of Sequential Sampling Models for Two-Choice Reaction Time.” Psychological Review 111 (2): 333–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing. 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, Richard, Harrison, Kimberly S., Shuman, Daniel W., Sewell, Kenneth W., and Hazelwood, Lisa L.. 2007. “An Analysis of Miranda Warnings and Waivers. Comprehension and Coverage.” Law and Human Behavior 31 (2): 177–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Richard, Hazelwood, Lisa L., Sewell, Kenneth W., Harrison, Kimberly S., and Shuman, Daniel W.. 2008. “The Language of Miranda Warnings in American Jurisdictions. A Replication and Vocabulary Analysis.” Law and Human Behavior 32 (2): 124–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, J. Edward, and Leclerc, France. 1994. “An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (2): 274–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/2489820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Michael, Kühberger, Anton, Gagl, Benjamin, and Hutzler, Florian. 2017. “Inducing Thought Processes: Bringing Process Measures and Cognitive Processes Closer Together.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30: 1001–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael, Kühberger, Anton, and Johnson, Joseph G.. 2019. A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods, 2nd ed. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 1980. “Strict Liability versus Negligence.” Journal of Legal Studies 9: 1–25.Google Scholar
Shi, Savannah Wei, Wedel, Michel, and (Rik) Pieters, F. G. M.. 2013. “Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data.” Management Science 59 (5): 1009–26. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Dan. 1998. “A Psychological Model of Judicial Decision Making.” Rutgers Law Journal 30: 1–142.Google Scholar
Simon, Dan. 2004. “A Third View of the Black Box. Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making.” University of Chicago Law Review 71: 511–86.Google Scholar
Simon, Dan, Krawczyk, Daniel C., and Holyoak, Keith J.. 2004. “Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction.” Psychological Science 15 (5): 331–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, Dan, Pham, Lien B., Le, Quang A., and Holyoak, Keith J.. 2001. “The Emergence of Coherence Over the Course of Decision Making.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 1250–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, Christopher E. 1989. “Bright-Line Rules and the Supreme Court: The Tension between Clarity in Legal Doctrine and Justices’ Policy Preferences.” Ohio Northern University Law Review 16: 119–38.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. 2017. “Triangulating Public Meaning: Corpus Linguistics, Immersion, and the Constitutional Record.” Brian Young University Law Review: 1621–82.Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J., Grosjean, Marc, and Knoblich, Günther. 2005. “Continuous Attraction toward Phonological Competitors.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (29): 10393–98. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503903102.Google ScholarPubMed
Stanners, Robert F., Coulter, Michelle, Sweet, Allen W., and Murphy, Philip. 1979. “The Pupillary Response as an Indicator of Arousal and Cognition.” Motivation and Emotion 3 (4): 319–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stüttgen, Peter, Boatwright, Peter, and Monroe, Robert T.. 2012. “A Satisficing Choice Model.” Marketing Science 31: 878–99. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., and Reisch, Lucia A.. 2017. The Economics of Nudge. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Svenson, Ola. 1974. “A Note on Think Aloud Protocols Obtained during the Choice of a Home.” 421. Reports from the Psychological Laboratories. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard, and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2008. Nudge. Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Theeuwes, Jan. 2010. “Top–Down and Bottom–Up Control of Visual Selection.” Acta Psychologica 135 (2): 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006.Google ScholarPubMed
Vlaskamp, Björn N. S., and Hooge, Ignace Th. C.. 2006. “Crowding Degrades Saccadic Search Performance.” Vision Research 46 (3): 417–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.04.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willemsen, Martijn C., and Johnson, Eric J.. 2011. “Visiting the Decision Factory: Observing Cognition with MouselabWEB and Other Information Acquisition Methods.” In A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide, edited by Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Michael, Kühberger, Anton, and Johnson, Joseph, 21–42. Society for Judgment and Decision Making Series. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Peter. 1974. “The Harrassed Decision Maker. Time Pressures, Distractions and the Use of Evidence.” Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 555–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×