Role-Induced Bias in Court: An Experimental Analysis

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 272-284

  Engel, Christoph ^a   Glöckner, Andreas ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biases; Coherence effects; Intuition; Legal decision making; Parallel constraint satisfaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879604050     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1761     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories. The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
2. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse. The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109-126.
3. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. F. (1995). Biased judgements of fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review, 85, 1337-1343.
4. Babcock, L., & Pogarsky, G. (1999). Damage caps and settlement. A behavioral approach. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28, 341-370.
5. Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Glöckner, A., Haar, T., & Fiedler, K. (2001). The effects of routine strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 23-53.
6. Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108, 652-661.
7. Bilalic, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2010). The mechanism of the Einstellung (set) effect: A pervasive source of cognitive bias. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 111-115.
8. Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., Russo, J. E., & Tanner, R. J. (2007). Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 240-254.
9. Brown, S., Asher, T., & Cialdini, R. (2005). Evidence of a positive relationship between age and preference for consistency. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 517-533.
10. Brownstein, A. L. (2003). Biased predecision processing. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 545-568.
11. Brownstein, A. L., Read, S. J., & Simon, D. (2004). Bias at the racetrack: Effects of individual expertise and task importance on predecision reevaluation of alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 891-904.
12. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 7, 91-103.
13. Cialdini, R., Trost, M., & Newsom, J. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318-328.
14. Daftary-Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 133-154.
15. DeKay, M. L., Patino-Echeverri, D., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2009a). Better safe than sorry: Precautionary reasoning and implied dominance in risky decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 338-361.
16. DeKay, M. L., Patino-Echeverri, D., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2009b). Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 79-92.
17. Ender, P. (2010). Binary_mediation: A new command to compute mediations with multiple mediators and binary and continuous variables in STATA. UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysis/.
18. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court-A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722.
19. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20. Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659-676.
21. Glöckner, A. (2008). How evolution outwits bounded rationality: The efficient interaction of automatic and deliberate processes in decision making and implications for institutions. In C. Engel & W. Singer (Eds.), Better than conscious? Decision making, the human mind, and implications for institutions (pp. 259-284). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Glöckner, A. (2009). Investigating intuitive and deliberate processes statistically: The multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification method. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 186-199.
23. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215-228.
24. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139, 532-542.
25. Glöckner, A., Betsch, T., & Schindler, N. (2010). Coherence shifts in probabilistic inference tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 439-462.
26. Glöckner, A., & Engel, C. (2008). Can we trust intuitive jurors? Standards of proof and the probative value of evidence in coherence based reasoning. MPI Collective Goods Preprint, No. 38. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1307580.
27. Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A.-K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 71-98.
28. Glöckner, A., & Ostermann, T. (2010). Preference for consistency increases the coherence effect and confidence in legal judgments. Manuscript in preparation.
29. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers' ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 133-157.
30. Green, B., & Zacharias, F. (2004). Prosecutorial neutrality. Wisconsin Law Review, 837-904.
31. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2000). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
32. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review, 93, 1-44.
33. Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 26, 1-17.
34. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999a). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
35. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999b). Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 597-614.
36. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2009). Ignorance- versus evidence-based decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1296-1305.
37. Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 128, 3-31.
38. Janis, I., & King, B. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.
39. Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Debiasing through law. The Journal of Legal Studies, 35, 199-241.
40. Korobkin, R. (2003). The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern University Law Review, 97, 1227-1294.
41. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
42. Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284-308.
43. Landeo, C. (2009). Cognitive coherence and tort reform. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 898-912.
44. Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C. F., & Babcock, L. (1993). Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. The Journal of Legal Studies, 22, 135-159.
45. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144.
46. Markman, K. D., & Hirt, E. R. (2002). Social prediction and the "allegiance bias". Social Cognition, 20, 58-86.
47. Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (attitudes as constraint satisfaction) model. Psychological Review, 115, 733-759.
48. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.
49. Nail, P. R., Correll, J. S., Drake, C. E., Glenn, S. B., Scott, G. M., & Stuckey, C. (2001). A validation study of the preference for consistency scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1193-1202.
50. Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155-162.
51. Norman, E., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2010). Take a quick click at that! Mouselab and eye-tracking as tools to measure intuition. In A. Glöckner & C. L. M. Witteman (Eds.), Tracing intuition: Recent methods in measuring intuitive and deliberate processes in decision making (pp. 24-44). London: Psychology Press/Routledge.
52. O'Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 315-334.
53. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552.
54. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-533.
55. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879.
56. Rachlinski, J. J. (2006). Cognitive errors, individual differences, and paternalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 207-229.
57. Read, S. J., Vanman, E. J., & Miller, L. C. (1997). Connectionism, parallel constraint satisfaction processes, and Gestalt principles: (Re)introducing cognitive dynamics to social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 26-53.
58. Robbennolt, J. K. (2004). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging. Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469-509.
59. Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Yong, K. (2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137, 456-470.
60. Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438-452.
61. Shultz, T. R., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Cognitive dissonance reduction as constraint satisfaction. Psychological Review, 103, 219-240.
62. Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 511-586.
63. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., Bleicher, A., & Holyoak, K. J. (2008). The transience of constructed preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 1-14.
64. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331-336.
65. Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The Redux of Cognitive Consistency Theories: Evidence Judgments by Constraint Satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814-837.
66. Simon, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). On the objectivity of investigations: An experiment Paper presented at the Conference for Empirical Legal Studies.
67. Simon, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2009). Partisanship and prosecutorial decision making: An experiment Paper presented at the Conference for Empirical Legal Studies.
68. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.
69. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
70. Spellman, B. A. (2010). Judges, expertise, and analogy. In D. Klein & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 149-163). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71. Sunstein, C. (1996). Social norms and social roles. Columbia Law Review, 96, 903-968.
72. Thagard, P. (2003). Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 361-383.
73. Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176-197.
74. Towfigh, E. V., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Game over: Empirical support for soccer bets regulation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 475-506.
75. Vidmar, N., & Laird, N. M. (1983). Adversary social roles: Their effects on witnesses communication of evidence and the assessments of adjudicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 888-898.
76. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
77. Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251-1345.
78. Zimbardo, P. (1965). The effect of effort and improvisation on self-persuasion produced by role-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 103-120.