ARTICLE

PSYCHOLOGICAL FLAWS IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

09 Pages : 83-93

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-II).09      10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-II).09      Published : Jun 2023

Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making

Abstract

    The judges' decision-making always plays a very significant role in governance and the judicial system. The fortification of judicial decision-making is generally considered different aspects that operate on different levels: external and internal factors. This study examines the various Psychological flaws, i.e. Implicit Biases, Heuristics (mental shortcuts), and Noise (varied judgments at different times) in judicial decision-making. This  research incorporates the shreds of evidence from various documents, articles and books. Then it explores the internal factors of environment, fatigue, mood, multitasking, and others which cause judges to be inclined toward these flaws. Furthermore, this doctrinal research tries to find valuable ways to reduce these effects. Eventually, it is concluded that judges are mostly being accountable for the code of their conduct, not for the decisions they make. Whether they are free from implicit bias, heuristics and noise? The more conscious and effortful decisions, along with the Checklists, Feedback and Accountability system of judges, can improve fairness and justice in the 21st century.

    Psychological Flaws, Judicial Decision-making, Implicit Biases, Noise, Heuristics

    (1) Saba Karim
    LLB from University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan.
    (2) Sardar Ali Shah
    Assistant Professor, Institute of Law, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan.
    (3) Amir Latif Bhatti
    Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Shaheed Benazirabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
  • Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569– 576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569
  • Braman, E. (2010). 13 Searching for constraint in legal decision making. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0013
  • Brest, P. Krieger, L. H. (2010). Problem solving, decision making, and professional judgment: A guide for lawyers and policymakers. Oxford University Press.
  • Casey, Warren, Cheesman, and Elek , (2012). Strategies to reduce the influence of implicit bias. Yale Unviversity. https://horsley.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/IB_Strategies_033012.pdf
  • Channa, A. (2022). Human Rights And World On The Edge Of World War III. Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 5(2), 633- 651 https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/view/469/337
  • Chopra, S. (2020). The psychology of framing and jury decision-making. Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California.
  • Clark, C. E. (1942). The function of Law in a Democratic society. The University of Chicago Law Review, 9(3), 393. https://doi.org/10.2307/1597400
  • Codiga. D.A. (2002). Reflections on the Potential Growth of Mindfulness Mediation in the Law. 7 Harv. Negot. L. Rev, 109.
  • Courtools. (2020, April 5). Trial Court performance measures. Courtools. https://www.courtools.org/trial-court-performance-measures
  • Danks, D., & London, A. J. (2017). Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (January), Melbourne, Australia:4691-4697.
  • Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
  • deTurck, M, Texter, L, & Harszlak, J. (1989). Effects of information processing objectives on judgments of deception following perjury. Communication Research, 16(3), 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365089016003006
  • Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
  • Dhami, M. K. (2003). Psychological models of Professional Decision making. Psychological Science, 14(2), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01438
  • Dhami, M. K., & Ayton, P. (2001). Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal way. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.371
  • Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological bulletin, 130(6), 959–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.959
  • Elsbach, K. D., & Barr, P. S. (1999). The effects of mood on individuals' use of structured decision protocols. Organization Science, 10(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.181
  • Enayati, A. (2011, May 11). Seeking Serenity: When lawyers go zen. CNN. https://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/11/seeking-serenity-when-lawyers-go-zen/
  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
  • Fischhoff, B. (2007). An early history of hindsight research. Social Cognition, 25(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.1.10
  • Fischhoff, B., & Beyth, R. (1975). I knew it would happen. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90002-1
  • Gawande, A. (2010). The Checklist Manifesto: How To Get Things Right. Metropolitan Books.
  • Gigerenzer, M. Engel, C. (2006). Heuristics. Heuristics and the law. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3488.001.0001
  • Guthrie, C. Rachlinski, J. Wistrich, A. (2002). Judging by Heuristic: Cognitive illusions in judicial decision making. Judicature, 86(1)
  • Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? the difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(4), 1251. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150614
  • Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J. Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 917
  • Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2009). The hidden 'judiciary': An empirical examination of executive branch justice. Duke Law Journal, 58(7)
  • Harley, G. Persico, N. (2018). Multi-tasking – why it's bad for court efficiency. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/europeandcentralasia/multi-tasking-why-it-s-bad-court-efficiency
  • Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: A review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.6.3.236
  • Heydenfeldt, J. A., Herkenhoff, L., & Coe, M. (2011). Cultivating mind fitness through mindfulness training: Applied neuroscience. Performance Improvement, 50(10), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20259
  • Heyes, A., & Saberian, S. (2019). Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(2), 238–265. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170223
  • Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and Neural Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611419671
  • Huntsinger, J. R., Clore, G. L., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2010). Mood and global–local focus: Priming a local focus reverses the link between mood and global–local processing. Emotion, 10(5), 722–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019356
  • Jaffe P. G., Crooks C. V., Dunford-Jackson B. L., & Town J. M. (2003). Vicarious trauma in judges: The personal challenge of dispensing justice. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 1–9.
  • Kahneman, D, Tversky. A. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232. https://doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (1st Ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the psychology of prediction. Judgment under Uncertainty, 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.005
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341– 350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341
  • Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2022). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Littlle, Brown Spark.
  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kip Viscusi, W. (1999). How do judges think about risk? American Law and Economics Review, 1(1), 26–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/1.1.26
  • Klatte, M., Bergström, K., & Lachmann, T. (2013). Does noise affect learning? A short review on noise effects on cognitive performance in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 578. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00578
  • Koehler, D, Harvey, N. (2004). Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Blackwell Publishing
  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
  • Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2015). Mindfulness Meditation Reduces Implicit Aged Race Bias: The Role of Reduced Automaticity of Responding. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 284- 291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559651
  • MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244(4908), 1046– 1050. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.244.4908.1046
  • Maroney, T. A., & Gross, J. J. (2013). The Ideal of the Dispassionate Judge: An Emotion Regulation Perspective. Emotion Review, 6(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913491989
  • Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: Lemonade, Willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychological Science, 19(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02077.x
  • Mayer, E. A. (2011). Gut feelings: The emerging biology of Gut–Brain Communication. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(8), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3071
  • McDonald, C. J. (1996). Medical heuristics: The silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 124(1_Part_1), 56. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_part_1-199601010-00009
  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Prentice Hall.
  • Olson, C. L. (1976). Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 599– 608. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.599
  • Peer, E. Gamliel, E. (2013). Heuristics and biases in judicial decisions.Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 422 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/422?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fajacourtreview%2F422&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
  • Priel, D. (2020). Law Is What the Judge Had for Breakfast: A Brief History of an Unpalatable Idea. Buffalo Law Review, 68, 899 Priel, D. (n.d.). Law Is What the Judge Had for Breakfast: A Brief History of an Unpalatable Idea. Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol68/iss3/4
  • Rassin, E., Eerland, A., & Kuijpers, I. (2010). Let's find the evidence: An analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), 231–246 https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.126
  • Resnick A., Myatt K. A., & Marotta P. V. (2011). Surviving bench stress. Family Court Review, 49(3), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01396
  • osso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and Review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
  • Shah, S. A., Balasingam, U., & Dhanapal, S. (2018). Legal Education in Pakistan: An Overview. IIUM Law Journal, 26(2), 401-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v26i2.380
  • Sprang G., Clark J. J., & Whitt-Woosley A. (2007). Compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, and burnout: Factors impacting a professional's quality of life. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020701238093
  • Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8038–8043 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202129109
  • Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2003). Surprises: Low probabilities or high contrasts? Cognition, 87(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00201-9
  • The Crime Report. (2014, December 3). Judy Harris Kluger: Building a Court System ‘Designed for Humans.’ https://thecrimereport.org/2014/12/03/2014-12-judy-harris-kluger-building-a-court-system-designed/
  • Torbert, C. J. (1983, January 14). First Ala.. Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. Martin. Legal research tools from Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/first-ala-bank-of-montgomery-na-v-martin
  • Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(4), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.4.479

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Karim, Saba, Sardar Ali Shah, and Amir Latif Bhatti. 2023. "Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII (II): 83-93 doi: 10.31703/glsr.2023(VIII-II).09

HARVARD

    HARVARD : KARIM, S., SHAH, S. A. & BHATTI, A. L. 2023. Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making. Global Legal Studies Review, VIII, 83-93.

MHRA

    MHRA : Karim, Saba, Sardar Ali Shah, and Amir Latif Bhatti. 2023. "Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII: 83-93

MLA

    MLA : Karim, Saba, Sardar Ali Shah, and Amir Latif Bhatti. "Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making." Global Legal Studies Review, VIII.II (2023): 83-93 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Karim, Saba, Shah, Sardar Ali, and Bhatti, Amir Latif (2023), "Psychological Flaws in Judicial Decision Making", Global Legal Studies Review, VIII (II), 83-93

TURABIAN