#30in30 – Fooled by Fundamentals

(Reading time: 2 Min read)

The Base Rate Fallacy is a formal fallacy. It occurs when too little weight is placed on the probability base rate of an event. People are succumbing to the base rate fallacy when erroneously judging the likelihood of an event without taking into account all the relevant data. The underlying mechanism is an overt focus on new information without acknowledging how this impacts the original assumptions. Old information is still evaluated and taken into account, however the newer pieces of information are given too much weight.

Jurists: How to Outsmart Those Outsmarting You

(Reading time: 5 min read)

In the light of our rationality campaign at the ChampionsTrophy 2017, we decided to repost this thought provoking article. It explaines quite well how behavioural science serves the legal profession as well as your individual career. The ChampionsTrophy is an annual sports event in which the best legal and business students from all over Europe are paticipating. We are glad to engage with the participants regarding rational decision-making.

#30in30 – Choose Pictures over Words

(Reading time: 2 min read)

The picture superiority effect implies that human memory is more likely to remember pictures rather than words. The American psychologist, Allan Paivio, discovered that our memory uses both verbal associations and visual imagery to represent information. The advantage of pictures over verbal information has large implications in advertisement and education. But this effect also has an influence on the judicial system of jury-trial courts.

Update Efficiency – How to Increase Your Legal Group’s Productivity

(Reading time: 6 min read)

Communication within a work or practice group is always a walk on a knife’s edge. On the one hand you want to foster a strong team identification and create a work-friendly environment. On the other hand, clear and direct feedback is of utmost importance to deliver high-quality results over a longer period of time. Unfortunately, most people tend to prefer the social aspect of communication over direct feedback. Hence, there is ample scope for improvements in communication efficiency and a tentative need for a new kind of communication.

#30in30 – When you see it, it will chase you “Catch me if you can.”

(Reading time: 3 min read)

The 30 in 30 Briefing Series focuses on a new cognitive bias, fallacy or heuristic in every single publication. Through this Briefing we want to provide you with a rough overview of the cognitive phenomena most likely to occur in the legal profession. Today’s content: Frequency illusion, or also known as Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

It has to be understood in conjunction with the Confirmation Bias: A combination of both has ample potential to turn out harmful for legal research.

#30in30 – Your Brain tends to look on the dark side of life

(Reading time: 3 min read)

The “negativity bias” impacts our life in every dimension. eople are more likely to evaluate a doctor online when they want to complain about something rather than when they are completely pleased with their treatment. You should consider applying this thought to your legal profession as well. It further impacts the communication with your clients and co-workers. The CEO of Good Think Inc., even found evidence that a more positive attitude towards life makes us more productive!

#30in30 – Good Mood – Better Decisions

(Reading time: 3 min read)

The “mood congruency effect” is not limited to your thoughts or memories, but it can also affect the types of decisions you make. According to Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman, and Evans (1992) who coined the term “mood congruency in judgments”, happy people are more likely than sad people to expect nice weather for a picnic, because nice weather is congruent with their pleasant mood.As lawyers, it is of extreme importance to be aware of the effect that mood has on decision making. This awareness ….

#30in30 – Why Everyone Thinks he’s Smarter than You

(Reading time: 2 min read)

The next time you hear the words “Had you asked me, I could have told you that would happen” you will remember: There is no rational reason to be annoyed. Our brains cannot help but think this way: Tricked by the Hindsight Bias, people tend to rate the likelihood of events higher when already knowing the actual outcome.
What is annoying in our everyday lives can turn hazardous when giving legal advice to your clients. Moreover, both judges and juries are likely to be misguided into applying a much higher standard of proof – especially in cases involving unresolved questions of negligence.

#30in30 – What you see is what you get

(Reading time: 2 min read)

The context Effect relates to how our brain processes the information we perceive in our environment. It describes how when we are confronted with environmental influences we often include them subliminally in our decision making.

Applied to the process of jurisdiction the Context Effect affects juries and judges because in each of them the finder of the…