{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022265246853823813, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011616650532429816, 'mean_word_length': 5.266666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Solving Complex Legal Cases Using the Intuitive System

Aim Two major challenges in legal decision making arise from the usually high complexity of the cases and from the high level of uncertainty caused by incomplete or missing information. In most cases it is not possible to apply Bayesian probability calculus, and legal standards prohibit the application of fast-and-frugal heuristics. Based on a connectionist approach to decision making, Simon (2004) argued that decision making in legal decisions is governed by coherence-based reasoning. The underlying parallel constraint satisfaction processes, which belong to the intuitive system, are unconscious and enable individuals to quickly integrate huge amounts of information (Glöckner & Betsch, 2006; 2007). The aim of this work was to test the parallel constraint satisfaction approach to decision making in complex legal cases using U.S. official jury instructions, and to manipulate the standard of proof, the predictive power of evidence and the framing of the legal case.