Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Public preference for AI judges tracks the type of dispute: institutional cases are more acceptable than interpersonal ones, and framing shifts the preference.

desk verdict Solid two-study map of dispute-type variation in judicial-AI acceptance; the descriptive pattern is real, the classification-mechanism story is not yet proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04838 v1 pith:GTDHPBJ6 submitted 2026-07-06 cs.CY

Masahiro Fujita , Eiichiro Watamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords artificialintelligencedisputecharacteristicslegaldecision-makingdisputespublicacceptancetechnologyconstruallevelinterpersonal-institutional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that whether people will accept an AI adjudicator is not just a matter of personality or general tech attitudes; it also depends on the psychological character of the dispute itself. Across two large Japanese samples, ratings of 46 legal vignettes reliably sorted into two dimensions: interpersonal-relational disputes (family conflict, violence, child welfare), where humans were strongly preferred, and institutional-procedural disputes (regulatory breaches, contracts, corporate misconduct), where AI acceptance was comparatively higher though still not majority. Experimentally raising emotional involvement or changing whether a case was framed as prototypical systematically moved those preferences, with the strongest single predictor being domain-specific expectations about AI (η² = 0.252). A three-way interaction of emotion, gender, and prototypicality showed that the contextual effects themselves are moderated by individual characteristics. The practical claim is that deployment and communication strategies should be tailored to dispute type rather than applied uniformly across the justice system.

What carries the argument

The interpersonal–institutional dispute dimension recovered by exploratory then confirmatory factor analysis on the same 46 vignettes; it is the latent organization that both predicts baseline AI preference and channels the effects of the emotion and prototypicality manipulations.

What would settle it

Direct classification tasks, reaction-time or process-tracing measures, or priming that forces institutional versus relational construal before any acceptability rating is collected: if induced classification does not shift subsequent AI preference in the predicted direction, the classification-mechanism claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Acceptability judgments for AI versus human adjudication form a stable two-dimensional structure—interpersonal-relational versus institutional-procedural—and that structure is causally sensitive to experimentally manipulated emotional involvement and prototypicality, with AI-specific expectations as the dominant proximal predictor.

Load-bearing premise

That the two-factor pattern recovered from the very ratings used as the dependent variable, plus the framing effects, can be read as evidence that people first classify the dispute and then decide on the adjudicator, rather than both patterns arising from shared emotional or moral reactions that were never measured separately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI legal tools should be piloted first in high-consensus institutional domains (traffic, regulatory, contractual) where public acceptance is higher and less variable.
  • Interpersonal cases (custody, violence, child welfare) require robust human oversight and transparent limits if legitimacy is to be preserved.
  • Communication that targets specific AI capabilities and risks will move acceptance more than generic technology campaigns or personality-based outreach.
  • Gender-differentiated responses under emotional framing imply audience-segmented messaging may be needed, at least within the studied cultural setting.
  • Technology-acceptance models that ignore dispute content will systematically mis-predict uptake across judicial domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the interpersonal–institutional split is culture-general, the same two-factor map could serve as a design template for hybrid human–AI systems outside Japan.
  • The large effect of AI-specific expectations suggests that short, case-type-matched educational interventions could produce measurable acceptance shifts faster than long-term personality or demographic change.
  • Boundary cases that load on both factors (armed robbery, workplace overwork) are natural test beds for measuring competing classification schemes in real time.
  • Once process measures confirm or refute the classification step, the same vignette battery could be re-used to isolate emotional, moral-foundation, or fairness pathways that currently remain confounded.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that public acceptance of AI versus human legal adjudication is shaped not only by individual differences but by psychological features of dispute content. Across two Japanese online-panel studies (N=1,384; N=596), Study 1 uses exploratory factor analysis on acceptability ratings of 46 single-sentence vignettes and recovers a two-factor structure distinguishing interpersonal-relational disputes (stronger human preference) from institutional-procedural disputes (comparatively higher AI acceptance). Study 2 replicates the structure with a five-point scale, experimentally manipulates emotional involvement and prototypicality, and finds a three-way interaction with gender plus a large main effect of AI-specific expectations (η2=0.252). The authors interpret the pattern through categorization and construal-level theory while acknowledging that classification itself was not measured and that emotion, moral intuition, or fairness may produce similar covariation.

Significance. If the descriptive claim holds, the work usefully extends technology-acceptance models by showing that dispute type is a systematic source of variance in AI legitimacy judgments, with clear practical implications for phased judicial AI deployment. Strengths include a large exploratory sample, independent-sample replication across response formats, sensitivity analyses on exclusion thresholds, and transparent discussion of alternative mechanisms and generalizability limits. The contribution is primarily empirical and descriptive rather than a definitive demonstration of cognitive classification as a causal mechanism; that framing is appropriately hedged in the General Discussion.

major comments (3)
  1. §5.1.2 and §5.2.1 correctly note that the two-factor structure is recovered from the same acceptability ratings that serve as the DV (Study 1 EFA, Table 2; Study 2 replication, Table 5). The central claim is therefore best stated as systematic preference covariation by dispute type plus experimental modulation, not as evidence that cognitive classification is the mediating process. The Abstract and §1–2 still lean toward the stronger mechanism language; those sections should be aligned with the more cautious General Discussion so that the load-bearing claim matches what the design can support.
  2. Study 2 exclusion rate of 67.2% (§4.2.2) is high even for online experiments with dual attention and comprehension checks. Demographic comparisons (§4.4.2) show modest shifts (age, gender, occupation). The sensitivity analyses (§4.3.6) are helpful, but the manuscript should report whether the three-way interaction and the η2=0.252 AI-expectations effect remain significant and of similar magnitude under the attention-check-only and no-exclusion samples, not only that factor structure is recovered. Without that, the experimental claim rests on a selected subsample whose digital literacy and AI familiarity may differ from the target population.
  3. The single-sentence vignettes (§3.2.2, §5.2.3, §5.4) are an explicit design choice that may amplify prototype-based distinctions. The paper acknowledges ecological-validity limits but does not test whether the institutional–interpersonal split survives richer materials. At minimum, a short robustness check or a clearer boundary statement in the Abstract/Conclusion is needed so readers do not over-generalize from highly abstracted stimuli to real case materials.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table 1 and Table 4 omit Q10 and Q34 (attention checks) without a note in the table notes; add a brief explanation for completeness.
  2. TIPI-J fit is poor (CFI=0.789, RMSEA=0.186; §4.3.2). The text already notes ultra-brief-scale limitations; a sentence on why personality results should be treated as exploratory would help.
  3. Figure 2 caption reports η2 values for simple interactions; ensure the y-axis metric (summed composite vs mean) is stated so readers can interpret the plotted means (e.g., 110–129 range).
  4. Preregistration is absent for both studies; the authors note this. A brief OSF or similar deposit of analysis code and vignette list would strengthen reproducibility claims already partially supported by the AI-use OSF link.
  5. Minor wording: §1.2 “Categorization theory (Rosch, 1975; Murphy, 2004) that individuals…” appears to miss a verb (“proposes” or similar).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild descriptive circularity only: the two-factor structure is recovered from the same acceptability ratings that serve as the DV; the paper itself treats this as descriptive, and Study 2 supplies independent experimental modulation.

  1. other [Study 1 §3.3.2 (EFA) and §3.4.2 / General Discussion §5.1.2, §5.2.1–5.2.2]
    "Exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation extracted two factors accounting for 61.6% of variance... This two-factor structure should be interpreted as a descriptive organization of acceptability judgments that systematically covaries with evaluations of AI suitability across dispute types... the dimensional structure represents a descriptive summary of response patterns, not direct evidence for classification as a psychological mechanism."

    The latent dimensions are defined by the loadings of the same acceptability items that constitute the dependent variable. Recovering ‘interpersonal vs institutional’ structure from those ratings is therefore a re-description of the DV’s covariance rather than independent evidence that cognitive classification causes the ratings. The paper correctly labels this descriptive and does not treat the EFA as a causal derivation; Study 2’s experimental manipulations supply the non-circular content.

full rationale

This is an empirical two-study paper (EFA + experimental framing), not a first-principles derivation. The only near-circular step is that Study 1’s two-factor solution is obtained by factor-analyzing the very acceptability ratings later treated as evidence that ‘psychological features of dispute content’ organize those ratings. That is a descriptive summary of the covariance of the DV, not an independent measurement of a latent classification process. The authors repeatedly flag exactly this limitation (§3.4.2, §5.1.2, §5.2.1–5.2.2) and list alternative mechanisms (emotion, moral foundations, fairness). Study 2 then (a) recovers the same structure on an independent sample with a different response format and (b) shows that experimentally manipulated emotional involvement and prototypicality shift the ratings in theoretically predicted directions, with AI-specific attitudes as the strongest covariate (η² = 0.252). No parameters are fitted and then re-labeled as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The central empirical claim—systematic variation by dispute type plus contextual modulation—therefore stands on independent experimental content. Score 2 reflects only the acknowledged descriptive circularity of the EFA step; it is not load-bearing for the paper’s strongest results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard psychometric and experimental assumptions plus two domain-level theoretical mappings (moral domain theory and construal-level theory) that are imported rather than tested. No free parameters are fitted to produce the factor solution; the two-factor extraction is data-driven. The main invented construct is the interpersonal/institutional dispute typology itself, which is recovered from the data but then reified as a psychological mechanism without independent process evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation recovers psychologically meaningful latent dimensions from acceptability ratings
    Standard psychometrics assumption used in Study 1; parallel analysis and KMO support extraction but do not guarantee the factors correspond to cognitive classification.
  • domain assumption Moral domain theory (Turiel 1983) and construal-level theory (Trope & Liberman 2010) correctly map onto legal-dispute content
    Imported theoretical mapping used to interpret Factor 1 vs Factor 2; not independently validated in the legal domain.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-sentence vignettes preserve the psychologically relevant features of real legal disputes
    Stimulus construction choice; ecological-validity limitation acknowledged by authors in §5.2.3 and §5.4.
  • domain assumption Attention-check and manipulation-comprehension failures can be excluded without introducing selection bias that alters the target effects
    67 % exclusion in Study 2; sensitivity analyses show structure survives but effect sizes attenuate and demographics shift.
invented entities (1)
  • Interpersonal-relational vs institutional-procedural dispute typology as a cognitive classification mechanism
    purpose: To explain systematic variation in AI vs human adjudicator preference beyond individual differences
    Recovered from EFA of the same ratings used as DV; treated as a causal psychological process without direct process measures (reaction times, sorting tasks, etc.).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTDHPBJ6

@misc{pith2026260704838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTDHPBJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04838}
}
read the original abstract

Public acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal decision-making has been primarily explained through individual differences in personality traits and general technology attitudes. However, contextual features of legal disputes themselves may systematically influence preferences for AI versus human adjudicators. Across two studies with Japanese participants (N = 1,384 and N = 596), we examined whether psychological characteristics of dispute content shape acceptability judgments for algorithmic adjudication. Study 1 employed exploratory factor analysis on acceptability ratings across 46 legal dispute vignettes, revealing a two-dimensional structure distinguishing interpersonal-relational disputes (where human adjudicators were strongly preferred) from institutional-procedural disputes (where AI acceptance was comparatively higher). Study 2 replicated this structure in an independent sample and demonstrated that experimentally manipulated contextual features - emotional involvement and prototypicality - systematically modulated acceptability judgments, with effects varying by dispositional trust, AI-specific attitudes, and gender. AI-specific expectations emerged as the strongest predictor (eta2 = 0.252), and a three-way interaction among emotional involvement, gender, and prototypicality indicated that contextual effects are moderated by individual characteristics. These findings suggest that the psychological features of dispute content constitute an overlooked dimension in AI acceptance research, extending beyond technology acceptance models to fundamental questions about how individuals construe social problems and allocate adjudicative authority.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmad, N. (2025). Smart resolutions: exploring the role of artificial intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. Cleve. State Law Rev. 73, 273–298

    2025

  2. [2]

    Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

    work page doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t 1991

  3. [3]

    Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., and Lampos, V . (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2:e93. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.93

    doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93 2016

  4. [4]

    M., Atkeson, L

    Alvarez, R. M., Atkeson, L. W ., Levin, I., and Li, Y . (2019). Paying attention to inattentive survey respondents. Polit. Anal. 27, 145–162. doi: 10.1017/pan.2018.57

    work page doi:10.1017/pan.2018.57 2019

  5. [5]

    Anduiza, E., and Galais, C. (2017). Answering without reading: IMCs and strong satisficing in online surveys. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 29, 497–519. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edw007

    work page doi:10.1093/ijpor/edw007 2017

  6. [6]

    J., Margolis, M

    Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F ., and Sances, M. W . (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 739–753. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12081

    work page doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 2014

  7. [7]

    Brown, A., and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 71, 460–502. doi: 10.1177/0013164410375112 Bühlmann, M., and Kunz, R. (2011). Confidence in the judiciary: comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West Eur. Polit. 34, 317–345. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2011.546576 S. ...

    work page doi:10.1177/0013164410375112 2011

  8. [8]

    Chandler, J., Mueller, P ., and Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behav. Res. 46, 112–130. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7

    work page doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 2014

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Chandler, P ., and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn. Instr. 8, 293–332. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen, C., Lee, S., and Stevenson, H. W . (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychol. Sci. 6, 170–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    B., and Osborne, J

    Costello, A. B., and Osborne, J. W . (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10:7. doi: 10.7275/jyj1-4868

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Davis, F . D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008 de la Osa, D. U. S., and Remolina, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: legal and ethical challenges of informi...

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    F ., and Crant, J

    Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F ., and Crant, J. M. (2008). Research note: how does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Inf. Syst. Res. 19, 93–105. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0153

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    F ., and Thorpe, C

    DeVellis, R. F ., and Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: theory and applications. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc

    2022

  7. [15]

    T., Mylonopoulos, N., and Theoharakis, V

    Esch, D. T., Mylonopoulos, N., and Theoharakis, V . (2025). Evaluating mobile-based data collection for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Behav. Res. 57:106. doi: 10.3758/ s13428-025-02618-1

    2025

  8. [16]

    Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Evans, J. S. B., and Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Wegener, D

    Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4, 272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Faul, F ., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    R., and Marsh, S

    Fine, A., Berthelot, E. R., and Marsh, S. (2025). Public perceptions of judges’ use of AI tools in courtroom decision-making: an examination of legitimacy, fairness, trust, and procedural justice. Behav. Sci. 15:476. doi: 10.3390/bs15040476 Fujita and Watamura 10.3389/frai.202...

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Sommerville, R

    Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., and Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 2105–2108. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    R., and Coglianese, C

    Grimm, P ., Grossman, M. R., and Coglianese, C. (2024). AI in the courts: how worried should we be? Judicature 107, 64–73. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5049139

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Harzing, A.-W . (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 6, 243–266. doi: 10.1177/1470595806066332

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Hayes, A. F . (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 2nd Edn. New Y ork, NY: Guilford Press

    2017

  17. [25]

    Kahan, D. M. (2015). Laws of cognition and the cognition of law. Cognition 135, 56–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.025

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Question and questionnaire design

    Krosnick, J. A., and Presser, S. (2010). “Question and questionnaire design” in Handbook of survey research. eds. P . V . Marsden and J. D. Wright. 2nd ed (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing). Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. O...

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data Soc. 5, 1–16. doi: 10.1177/2053951718756684

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    A., and Tyler, T

    Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New Y ork, NY: Plenum Press

    1988

  21. [29]

    Mischel, W ., and Shoda, Y . (1995). A cognitive–affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102, 246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

    1995 doi

  22. [30]

    Miura, A., and Kobayashi, T. (2015). Mechanical Japanese: survey satisficing of online panels in Japan. Jpn. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 1–12. doi: 10.14966/jssp.31.1_1

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    2004

  24. [32]

    Nass, C., and Moon, Y . (2000). Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56, 81–103. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00153

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    Nucci, L. P . (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

    2001

  26. [34]

    Oshio, S., Abe, S., and Cutrone, P . (2012). An attempt to develop the Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J). Jpn. J. Pers. 21, 40–52. doi: 10.2132/ personality.21.40

    2012

  27. [35]

    geographical advantage

    Ota, S. (2023). Evaluation of the “geographical advantage” in jurisdiction and arbitration agreements and its implications for attitudes toward AI support systems. Horitsu Ronso 96, 133–164

    2023

  28. [36]

    Parasuraman, R., and Riley, V . (1997). Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39, 230–253. doi: 10.1518/001872097778543886

    1997 doi

  29. [37]

    Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 104, 192–233. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192

    1975 doi

  30. [38]

    Principles of categorization

    Rosch, E. (1978). “Principles of categorization” in Cognition and categorization. eds. E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)

    1978

  31. [39]

    Rosch, E., and Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn. Psychol. 7, 573–605. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9

    1975 doi

  32. [40]

    X., and Cullen, J

    Si, S. X., and Cullen, J. B. (1998). Response categories and potential cultural bias: effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 6, 218–230. doi: 10.1108/eb028886

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Langston, C., and Nisbett, R

    Smith, E. E., Langston, C., and Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 16, 1–40. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1601_1

    1992 doi

  34. [42]

    Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v robot?: artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law J. 41, 1114–1133. doi: 10.3316/informit.040979608613368

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J. Pers. Assess. 80, 99–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F . G. W . C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    G., and Fidell, L

    Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. 6th Edn

    2012

  38. [46]

    A., and Clifford, S

    Thomas, K. A., and Clifford, S. (2017). Validity and Mechanical Turk: an assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Comp. Hum. Behav. 77, 184–197. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Trope, Y ., and Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: morality and convention

    1983

  41. [49]

    Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc. Rev. 22, 103–135. doi: 10.2307/3053563

    1988 doi

  42. [50]

    Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. 2nd Edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

    2006

  43. [51]

    R., and Huo, Y

    Tyler, T. R., and Huo, Y . J. (2002). Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New Y ork, NY: Russell Sage Foundation

    2002

  44. [52]

    Venkatesh, V ., and Davis, F . D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. MIS Q. 24, 186–204. doi: 10.2307/3250921

    2000 doi

  45. [53]

    Venkatesh, V ., and Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24, 115–139. doi: 10.2307/3250981

    2000 doi

  46. [54]

    Versteeg, M., and Ginsburg, T. (2017). Measuring the rule of law: a comparison of indicators. Law Soc. Inq. 42, 100–137. doi: 10.1111/lsi.12175

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Wetzel, E., Frick, S., and Greiff, S. (2020). The multidimensional forced-choice format as an alternative for rating scales: current state of the research. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 36, 206–213. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000609

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Nye, C

    Zhang, B., Sun, T., Drasgow, F ., Chernyshenko, O. S., Nye, C. D., Stark, S., et al. (2020). Though forced, still valid: psychometric equivalence of forced-choice and single- statement measures. Organ. Res. Methods 23, 569–590. doi: 10.1177/1094428119836486

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.