scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Robert J. MacCoun

Bio: Robert J. MacCoun is an academic researcher from Stanford University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Legalization & Jury. The author has an hindex of 48, co-authored 180 publications receiving 8140 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert J. MacCoun include RAND Corporation & University of California, Berkeley.


Papers
More filters
MonographDOI
TL;DR: This article provided the first multidisciplinary and nonpartisan analysis of how the United States should decide on the legal status of cocaine, heroin and marijuana, and showed that the choice about how to regulate drugs involves complicated tradeoffs among goals and conflict among social groups.
Abstract: This book provides the first multidisciplinary and nonpartisan analysis of how the United States should decide on the legal status of cocaine, heroin and marijuana. It draws on data about the experiences of Western European nations with less punitive drug policies as well as new analyses of America's experience with legal cocaine and heroin a century ago, and of America's efforts to regulate gambling, prostitution, alcohol and cigarettes. It offers projections on the likely consequences of a number of different legalization regimes and shows that the choice about how to regulate drugs involves complicated tradeoffs among goals and conflict among social groups. The book presents a sophisticated discussion of how society should deal with the uncertainty about the consequences of legal change. Finally, it explains, in terms of individual attitudes toward risk, why it is so difficult to accomplish substantial reform of drug policy in America.

502 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The relative susceptibility of individuals and groups to systematic judgmental biases is considered in this article, where a theoretical analysis employing J. H. Davis's social decision scheme (SDS) model reveals that the relative magnitude of individual and group bias depends upon several factors, including group size, initial individual judgment, the magnitude of bias among individuals, the type of bias, and most of all, the group-judgment process.
Abstract: The relative susceptibility of individuals and groups to systematic judgmental biases is considered. An overview of the relevant empirical literature reveals no clear or general pattern. However, a theoretical analysis employing J. H. Davis's (1973) social decision scheme (SDS) model reveals that the relative magnitude of individual and group bias depends upon several factors, including group size, initial individual judgment, the magnitude of bias among individuals, the type of bias, and most of all, the group-judgment process. It is concluded that there can be no simple answer to the question, "Which are more biased, individuals or groups?," but the SDS model offers a framework for specifying some of the conditions under which individuals are both more and less biased than groups.

454 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings, and examines theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias.
Abstract: The latter half of this century has seen an erosion in the perceived legitimacy of science as an impartial means of finding truth. Many research topics are the subject of highly politicized dispute; indeed, the objectivity of the entire discipline of psychology has been called into question. This essay examines attempts to use science to study science: specifically, bias in the interpretation and use of empirical research findings. I examine theory and research on a range of cognitive and motivational mechanisms for bias. Interestingly, not all biases are normatively proscribed; biased interpretations are defensible under some conditions, so long as those conditions are made explicit. I consider a variety of potentially corrective mechanisms, evaluate prospects for collective rationality, and compare inquisitorial and adversarial models of science.

312 citations

Book
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: This article provided the first multidisciplinary and nonpartisan analysis of how the United States should decide on the legal status of cocaine, heroin and marijuana, drawing on data about the experiences of Western European nations with less punitive drug policies.
Abstract: This book provides the first multidisciplinary and nonpartisan analysis of how the United States should decide on the legal status of cocaine, heroin and marijuana It draws on data about the experiences of Western European nations with less punitive drug policies as well as new analyses of America's experience with legal cocaine and heroin a century ago, and of America's efforts to regulate gambling, prostitution, alcohol and cigarettes It offers projections on the likely consequences of a number of different legalization regimes and shows that the choice about how to regulate drugs involves complicated tradeoffs among goals and conflict among social groups The book presents a sophisticated discussion of how society should deal with the uncertainty about the consequences of legal change Finally, it explains, in terms of individual attitudes toward risk, why it is so difficult to accomplish substantial reform of drug policy in America

283 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present experiments and generalized Causal inference methods for single and multiple studies, using both control groups and pretest observations on the outcome of the experiment, and a critical assessment of their assumptions.
Abstract: 1. Experiments and Generalized Causal Inference 2. Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity 3. Construct Validity and External Validity 4. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Either Lack a Control Group or Lack Pretest Observations on the Outcome 5. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Use Both Control Groups and Pretests 6. Quasi-Experimentation: Interrupted Time Series Designs 7. Regression Discontinuity Designs 8. Randomized Experiments: Rationale, Designs, and Conditions Conducive to Doing Them 9. Practical Problems 1: Ethics, Participant Recruitment, and Random Assignment 10. Practical Problems 2: Treatment Implementation and Attrition 11. Generalized Causal Inference: A Grounded Theory 12. Generalized Causal Inference: Methods for Single Studies 13. Generalized Causal Inference: Methods for Multiple Studies 14. A Critical Assessment of Our Assumptions

12,215 citations

01 Jan 1982
Abstract: Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

7,539 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article examined the correlates of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice using 190 studies samples, totaling 64,757 participants, and found the distinction between the three justice types to be merited.

3,299 citations

Book
16 Dec 2005
TL;DR: Systematic review methods have been widely used in health care, and are becoming increasingly common in the social sciences (fostered by the work of the Campbell Collaboration) as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Such diverse thinkers as Lao-Tze, Confucius, and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have all pointed out that we need to be able to tell the difference between real and assumed knowledge. The systematic review is a scientific tool that can help with this difficult task. It can help, for example, with appraising, summarising, and communicating the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of data. This is important because quite often there are so many studies, and their results are often so conflicting, that no policymaker or practitioner could possibly carry out this task themselves.Systematic review methods have been widely used in health care, and are becoming increasingly common in the social sciences (fostered, for example, by the work of the Campbell Collaboration). This book outlines the rationale and methods of systematic reviews, giving worked examples from social science and other fields. It requires no previous knowledge, but takes the reader through the process stage by stage. It draws on examples from such diverse fields as psychology, criminology, education, transport, social welfare, public health, and housing and urban policy, among others.The book includes detailed sections on assessing the quality of both quantitative, and qualitative research; searching for evidence in the social sciences;meta-analytic and other methods of evidence synthesis; publication bias; heterogeneity; and approaches to dissemination.

3,263 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992) as discussed by the authors is a model of mass opinion formation that offers readers an introduction to the prevailing theory of opinion formation.
Abstract: Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

3,150 citations