期刊文献+

试论职务犯罪侦查中的锚定效应

Discussion on Anchoring Effect in the Investigation of Duty Crimes
下载PDF
导出
摘要 锚定效应是职务犯罪侦查中客观存在的认知偏差,具有普遍性、顽强性与活跃性,其负面效应可能导致冤假错案。当前,应将语意启动范式锚定效应、基本锚定效应与内生源锚定效应作为重点,整合选择通达与不充分调整,探索建立符合职务犯罪侦查规律的模式,深入把握职务犯罪侦查中锚定效应的形成机制。要抓住司法体制改革的重要机遇,结合锚定效应的作用机制,加快优化职务犯罪侦查工作模式;充分发挥评估干预机能,探索建立健全职务犯罪侦查循证的决策机制;加强相关性分析,促进职务犯罪侦防一体化的机制建设。 The anchoring effect is the objective deviation of cognition in the investigation of duty crimes,it has the features of universality,tenacity and activity,and its negative effect might even become the important reason of miscarriage of Justice. At present,it should focus on semantic priming paradigm anchoring effect,basic anchoring effect and endogenous origin anchoring effect,0 we should integrate the choice of accessibility and inadequate adjustment,need to establish a investigation rule mode of duty crimes,and to deeply grasp the formation mechanism of anchoring effect in the duty crimes investigation. We should seize the opportunity of judicial system reform,and accelerate the optimization of the duty crimes investigation mode by combining the anchoring effect mechanism,give full play to the intervention function of assessment,explore and establish a sound decision-making mechanism for evidence-based investigation of duty crimes,we should strengthen the related analysis,so as to promote the construction of integrated mechanism of investigation and prevention of duty crimes.
出处 《湖北警官学院学报》 2017年第5期27-33,共7页 Journal of Hubei University of Police
关键词 锚定效应 职务犯罪侦查 不确定状态 Anchoring Effect Investigation of Duty Crimes Indeterminate State
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献116

  • 1黄继.爱因斯坦与玻尔物理实在观的比较分析[J].南京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2004,6(3):13-16. 被引量:2
  • 2莫丹谊.试析日本刑事诉讼中的预断排除原则[J].现代法学,1996,18(4):122-124. 被引量:20
  • 3辛晓晖.模糊性和精确性应作为一对范畴纳入哲学教科书[J].福建论坛(文史哲版),1986(2):33-36. 被引量:2
  • 4Adair, L. W., & Weingart, L. (2007). The timing and function of offers in U.S. and Japanese Negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1056 - 1068.
  • 5Ash, K. I., & Jennifer, W. (2008). Hindsight bias in insight and mathematical problem-solving: evidence of different reconstruction mechanisms for metacognitive vs. situational judgments. Memory & Cognition, 36, 822 - 837.
  • 6Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G.. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65 - 77.
  • 7Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G.. B., Schwartz, J.A., & Bergus, G.. R. (2007). The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Medical Decision Making, 27, 203 -211.
  • 8Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment.(pp. 120 - 138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 9Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
  • 10Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447-460.

共引文献143

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部