IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2017_24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defendant Should Have the Last Word – Experimentally Manipulating Order and Provisional Assessment of the Facts in Criminal Procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Engel

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Andreas Glöckner

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Sinika Timme

    (University of Göttingen)

Abstract

From a normative perspective the order in which evidence is presented should not bias legal judgment. Yet psychological research on how individuals process conflicting evidence sug-gests that order could matter. The evidence shows that decision-makers dissolve ambiguity by forging coherence. This process could lead to a primacy effect: initial tentative interpretations bias the view on later conflicting evidence. Or the process could result in a recency effect: the evidence presented last casts decisive light on the case. In two studies (N1 = 221, N2 = 332) we test these competing hypotheses in a mock legal case. Legal orders sometimes even expect judges to provisionally assess the evidence. At least they have a hard time preventing this from happening. To test whether this creates or exacerbates bias, in the second dimensions, we explicitly demand experimental participants to express their leaning, after having seen half of the evidence. We consistently observe recency effects and no interactions with leanings. If the legal order wants to preempt false convictions, defendant should have the last word.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner & Sinika Timme, 2017. "Defendant Should Have the Last Word – Experimentally Manipulating Order and Provisional Assessment of the Facts in Criminal Procedure," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2017_24, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
  • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2017_24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2017_24online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lind, E. Allan & Kray, Laura & Thompson, Leigh, 2001. "Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 189-210, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet & Marion Fortin, 2014. "One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 435-451, October.
    3. Kray, Laura J. & Allan Lind, E., 2002. "The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others' experiences in organizational justice judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 906-924, September.
    4. Deanna Malatesta & Lisa Blomgren Amsler & Susanna Foxworthy Scott, 2020. "Disputant Experience and Preferences for Mediated or Adjudicated Processes in Administrative Agencies: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Settlement Part Program," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 552-570, March.
    5. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Price, Kenneth H. & Lavelle, James J. & Henley, Amy B. & Cocchiara, Faye K. & Buchanan, F. Robert, 2006. "Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 212-226, March.
    7. 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.
    8. McCarthy, Julie M. & Bauer, Talya N. & Truxillo, Donald M. & Campion, Michael C. & Van Iddekinge, Chad H. & Campion, Michael A., 2017. "Using pre-test explanations to improve test-taker reactions: Testing a set of “wise” interventions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 43-56.
    9. Li, Yan & He, Hongwei, 2013. "Evaluation of international brand alliances: Brand order and consumer ethnocentrism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 89-97.
    10. van Dijke, Marius & Verboon, Peter, 2010. "Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 80-91, February.
    11. Christoph Engel & Rima-Maria Rahal, 2022. "Eye-Tracking as a Method for Legal Research," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Shaobo Wei & Weiling Ke & Augustine A. Lado & Hefu Liu & Kwok Kee Wei, 2020. "The Effects of Justice and Top Management Beliefs and Participation: An Exploratory Study in the Context of Digital Supply Chain Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 51-71, September.
    13. Shay Lavie & Tal Ganor & Yuval Feldman, 2020. "Adjusting legal standards," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 33-53, February.
    14. Tangirala, Subrahmaniam & Alge, Bradley J., 2006. "Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of uncertainty management theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Cropanzano, Russell & Paddock, Layne & Rupp, Deborah E. & Bagger, Jessica & Baldwin, Amanda, 2008. "How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-51, January.
    16. Marc Jekel & Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder & Viktoriya Maydych, 2014. "Approximating rationality under incomplete information: Adaptive inferences for missing cue values based on cue-discrimination," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 129-147, March.
    17. Hyomin Park & David Melamed, 2016. "The Effects of Stability and Presentation Order of Rewards on Justice Evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Elise Marescaux & Sophie De Winne & Luc Sels, 2019. "Idiosyncratic Deals from a Distributive Justice Perspective: Examining Co-workers’ Voice Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 263-281, January.
    19. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    20. Scheaf, David J. & Davis, Blakley C. & Webb, Justin W. & Coombs, Joseph E. & Borns, Jared & Holloway, Garrett, 2018. "Signals' flexibility and interaction with visual cues: Insights from crowdfunding," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 720-741.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    criminal procedure; presumption of innocence; recency; primacy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    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:2017_24. 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.