IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2010_37.html

Role Induced Bias in Court: An Experimental Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Glöckner

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

  • Christoph Engel

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

Abstract

Criminal procedure is organized as a tournament with predefined roles. We show that assuming the role of a defense counsel or prosecutor leads to role induced bias even if participants are asked to predict a court ruling after they have ceased to act in that role, and if they expect a substantial financial incentive for being accurate. The bias is not removed either if participants are instructed to predict the court ruling in preparation of plea bargaining. In line with parallel constraint satisfaction models for legal decision making, findings indicate that role induced bias is driven by coherence effects (Simon, 2004), that is, systematic information distortions in support of the favored option. This is mainly achieved by downplaying the importance of conflicting evidence. These distortions seem to stabilize interpretations, and people do not correct for this bias. Implications for legal procedure are briefly discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2010. "Role Induced Bias in Court: An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2010_37, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised Jan 2012.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2010_37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2010_37online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_02, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    2. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    3. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modelling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 215-228, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Schweizer, 2012. "Comparing Holistic and Atomistic Evaluation of Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2012_21, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.

    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. Christoph Engel, 2008. "Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction. A Behavioural Perspective on a Conflict between American and Continental European Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_33, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    2. Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2009. "Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 297-306, June.
    3. António Madureira & Nico Baken & Harry Bouwman, 2011. "Value of digital information networks: a holonic framework," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-30, April.
    4. Hao, Xinyue & Demir, Emrah & Eyers, Daniel, 2024. "Exploring collaborative decision-making: A quasi-experimental study of human and Generative AI interaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Julian N. Marewski & Rudiger F. Pohl & Oliver Vitouch, 2010. "Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (Vol.\ 1)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(4), pages 207-215, July.
    6. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    7. Lena Nadarevic & Martin Schnuerch & Marlena J. Stegemann, 2021. "Judging fast and slow: The truth effect does not increase under time-pressure conditions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1234-1266, September.
    8. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    9. Ashley Lawrence & Rick Thomas & Michael Dougherty, 2018. "Long-term serial position effects in cue-based inference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, July.
    10. Richard Iles & Haniel Gatumu & Samuel Kagunda, 2019. "The role of poverty on economic decision-making: a model of cognitive function and heuristic use," Working Papers 2019-3, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0241182 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Andreas Glöckner & Stephan Dickert, 2008. "Base-rate Respect by Intuition: Approximating Rational Choices in Base-rate Tasks with Multiple Cues," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_49, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    13. Stefan Scherbaum & Simon Frisch & Susanne Leiberg & Steven J. Lade & Thomas Goschke & Maja Dshemuchadse, 2016. "Process dynamics in delay discounting decisions: An attractor dynamics approach," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 472-495, September.
    14. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    15. Christoph Engel, 2010. "The Multiple Uses of Experimental Evidence in Legal Scholarship," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 166(1), pages 199-202, March.
    16. Julian N. Marewski & Katja Mehlhorn, 2011. "Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(6), pages 439-519, August.
    17. Ben Newell & Arndt Bröder, 2008. "Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 195-204, March.
    18. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    19. Julian N. Marewski & Rudiger F. Pohl & Oliver Vitouch, 2011. "Recognition-based judgments and decisions: Introduction to the special issue (II)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(1), pages 1-6, February.
    20. A. Madureira & F. Hartog & N. Baken, 2016. "A holonic framework to understand and apply information processes in evolutionary economics: survey and proposal," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-190, September.
    21. Anne-Sophie Chaxel & J. Edward Russo & Neda Kerimi, 2013. "Preference-driven biases in decision makers' information search and evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 561-576, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • K14 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Criminal Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of 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:2010_37. 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.