Plea Bargaining: A Test of Dual Discounting Preferences for Non-Monetary Losses.

Judgment and decision-making research on discounting suggests that when humans are thinking about gains, they tend to prefer certain and immediate outcomes to uncertain and delayed outcomes. However, discounting has been studied primarily using monetary commodities and, until recently, by testing one feature of the binary forced-choice task at a time: delay, probability, or amount of money received/lost. The present research is the first test of a dual discounting task that combines probability and delay into a single, binary forced-choice task in a non-monetary loss context.

Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions.

The law applicable to genomics in the United States is currently in transition and under debate. The rapid evolution of the science, burgeoning clinical research, and growing clinical application pose serious challenges for federal and state law. Although there has been some empirical work in this area, this is the first paper to survey and interview key scientific and legal stakeholders in the field of genomics to help ground identification of the most important legal problems that must be solved to successfully integrate genomics into clinical care.

How Interdisciplinary? Taking Stock of Decision-Making Research at the Intersection of Psychology and Law.

Contemporary inquiries in psychology and law increasingly cross disciplinary boundaries for inspiration. Our focus is on whether such research is substantive in both directions and whether interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams produce more meaningful interdisciplinary work, specifically in decision-making research conducted between 2004 and 2017. We found that interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams () produce publications that show more cross-disciplinary integration in methods than single-discipline teams, () produce publications with more conceptual integration in the introduction and discussion than only law author teams, and () elicit more citations than only law or only psychology author teams.