Framing, Fairness, and Ambiguity in Plea Decisions and Other Risky Choices: A Unified Approach

ABSTRACT Three scholars take interdisciplinary perspectives on plea decision‐making, which resolves more than 95% of criminal cases. Wolfe (2025) draws out lessons from findings in medical decision‐making research and explains how findings and theory bridge domains. Wilson (2025) draws out lessons from behavioral economics for plea decision‐making and explains how perceptions of fairness could influence plea bargaining beyond economics, providing novel predictions. Faigman (2025) emphasizes the uncertainties surrounding plea bargaining in actual cases, and how considering plea bargaining as decision‐making “put[s] fairness top of mind.” I take up the challenges outlined by these scholars and extend fuzzy‐trace theory in new ways to account for qualitative and quantitative features of plea‐bargaining options encompassing meaningful bottom‐line gist, ambiguity of options, positive and negative valence of outcomes, and core social and moral values, such as fairness and justice.