IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2022_06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Engel

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

Abstract

Judges are human beings. Is their behavior therefore subject to the same effects that psy-chology and behavioral economics have documented for convenience samples, like uni-versity students? Does that fact that they decide on behalf of third parties moderate their behavior? In which ways does the need matter to find a solution when the evidence is in-conclusive and contested? How do the multiple institutional safeguards resulting from procedural law, and the ways how the parties use it, affect judicial decision-making? Many of these questions have been put to the experimental test. The paper provides a systemat-ic overview of the rich evidence, points out gaps that still exist, and discusses methodo-logical challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Engel, 2022. "Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2022_06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2022_06online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christoph Engel & Keren Weinshall, 2020. "Manna from Heaven for Judges: Judges’ Reaction to a Quasi‐Random Reduction in Caseload," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 722-751, December.
    2. Zhuang Liu, 2018. "Does Reason Writing Reduce Decision Bias? Experimental Evidence from Judges in China," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 83-118.
    3. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, 2007. "Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 940-956, October.
    4. Reid Hastie, 2011. "The Challenge to Produce Useful “Legal Numbers”," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 6-20, December.
    5. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    6. Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, 2011. "Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 709-727, December.
    7. van Dijk, Frans & Sonnemans, Joep & Bauw, Eddy, 2014. "Judicial error by groups and individuals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 224-235.
    8. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2017. "You Are in Charge: Experimentally Testing the Motivating Power of Holding a Judicial Office," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-50.
    9. Joanna M. Shepherd, 2009. "The Influence of Retention Politics on Judges' Voting," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 169-206, January.
    10. Engel, Christoph & Goerg, Sebastian J., 2018. "If the worst comes to the worst: Dictator giving when recipient’s endowments are risky," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 51-70.
    11. Joep Sonnemans & Frans van Dijk, 2012. "Errors in Judicial Decisions: Experimental Results," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 687-716, October.
    12. Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2013. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 230-252, June.
    13. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2015. "Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 7-33.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Moskowitz, Tobias J. & Shue, Kelly, 2016. "Decision-Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence From Asylum Courts, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," IAST Working Papers 16-43, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Holger Spamann & Lars Klöhn, 2016. "Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 255-280.
    16. Eberhard Feess & Roee Sarel, 2018. "Judicial Effort and the Appeals System: Theory and Experiment," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 269-294.
    17. Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, 2013. "The Effect of Legal Expert Commentary on Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 797-814, December.
    18. Arthur Schram, 2005. "Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 225-237.
    19. Zev J. Eigen & Yair Listokin, 2012. "Do Lawyers Really Believe Their Own Hype, and Should They? A Natural Experiment," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 239-267.
    20. Choi, Donghyun Danny & Harris, J. Andrew & Shen-Bayh, Fiona, 2022. "Ethnic Bias in Judicial Decision Making: Evidence from Criminal Appeals in Kenya," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(3), pages 1067-1080, August.
    21. Cerrone, Claudia & Engel, Christoph, 2019. "Deciding on behalf of others does not mitigate selfishness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    22. Kelman, Mark & Rottenstreich, Yuval & Tversky, Amos, 1996. "Context-Dependence in Legal Decision Making," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 287-318, June.
    23. Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko & Jarosław Kantorowicz & Keren Weinshall, 2022. "Ideological bias in constitutional judgments: Experimental analysis and potential solutions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 716-757, September.
    24. Oren Gazal‐Ayal & Raanan Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, 2010. "Let My People Go: Ethnic In‐Group Bias in Judicial Decisions—Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 403-428, September.
    25. John Zhuang Liu & Xueyao Li, 2019. "Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 630-670, September.
    26. Daniel L. Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(3), pages 1181-1242.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Philippe, Arnaud, 2023. "Clash of norms judicial leniency on defendant birthdays," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 324-344.
    2. Konstantinos Kalliris & Theodore Alysandratos, 2023. "One judge to rule them all: Single‐member courts as an answer to delays in criminal trials," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 233-268, March.
    3. Chen, Daniel L. & Philippe, Arnaud, 2018. "Clash of norms: Judicial leniency on defendant birthdays," IAST Working Papers 18-76, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    4. Chen, Daniel L. & Prescott, J.J., 2016. "Implicit Egoism in Sentencing Decisions: First Letter Name Effects with Randomly Assigned Defendants," IAST Working Papers 16-56, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    5. Alejandro Núnez Arroyo, 2018. "Information seeking with selective memory," Documentos CEDE 17131, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    6. Payzan-LeNestour, Elise & Pradier, Lionnel & Putniņš, Tālis J., 2023. "Biased risk perceptions: Evidence from the laboratory and financial markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2021. "Fragile Algorithms and Fallible Decision-Makers: Lessons from the Justice System," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 71-96, Fall.
    8. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2020. "Interview Sequences and the Formation of Subjective Assessments," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 045, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    9. Maria R. Ibanez & Michael W. Toffel, 2020. "How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food-Safety Inspections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2396-2416, June.
    10. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Gregory DeAngelo & Bryan C. McCannon, 2019. "Political competition in judge and prosecutor elections," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 167-193, October.
    12. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    13. James Wang, 2020. "Screening soft information: evidence from loan officers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 1287-1322, December.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Duc Duy Nguyen & Steven Ongena & Shusen Qi & Vathunyoo Sila, 2022. "Climate Change Risk and the Cost of Mortgage Credit [Does climate change affect real estate prices? Only if you believe in it]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(6), pages 1509-1549.
    16. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2024. "Interview Sequences and the Formation of Subjective Assessments," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 497, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Chen, Daniel L. & Halberstam, Yosh & Yu, Alan, 2016. "Covering: Mutable Characteristics and Perceptions of (Masculine) Voice in the U.S. Supreme Court," IAST Working Papers 16-38, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Feb 2020.
    18. Benjamin Radoc, 2020. "Bandit with similarity information," Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Working Paper Series 202002, Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University.
    19. Maximilian Späth & Daniel Goller, 2023. "Gender differences in investment reactions to irrelevant information," CEPA Discussion Papers 67, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Shrestha, Maheshwor, 2019. "Death scares: How potential work-migrants infer mortality rates from migrant deaths," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    21. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    22. Aimone, Jason A. & Hudja, Stanton & Law, Wilson & North, Charles M. & Ralston, Jason & Rentschler, Lucas, 2023. "An experimental exploration of reasonable doubt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 873-886.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    judicial decision-making; bias; heuristic; attitudinal model; ambiguity; parallel constraint satisfaction; public perception;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
    • K14 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Criminal Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2022_06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.