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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Cerrone, Claudia & Engel, Christoph, 2019. "Deciding on behalf of others does not mitigate selfishness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    26. 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.
    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. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. James Wang, 2020. "Screening soft information: evidence from loan officers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 1287-1322, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Anna Bindler & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Path Dependency in Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1971-2017.
    11. Gagnon-Bartsch, Tristan & Bushong, Benjamin, 2022. "Learning with misattribution of reference dependence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    12. Oliphant, Wesley & Ma, Hong, 2021. "Applying Behavioral Economics to microcredit in China’s rural areas," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    13. He, Kevin, 2022. "Mislearning from censored data: The gambler's fallacy and other correlational mistakes in optimal-stopping problems," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(3), July.
    14. Deshpande Sameer K. & Wyner Abraham, 2017. "A hierarchical Bayesian model of pitch framing," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 95-112, September.
    15. Chen, Daniel L., 2023. "Judicial compliance in district courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Artiga González, Tanja & Calluzzo, Paul & Granic, Georg D., 2023. "Ballot order effects in independent director elections," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Robert M. Lantis & Erik T. Nesson, 2019. "Hot Shots: An Analysis of the ‘Hot Hand’ in NBA Field Goal and Free Throw Shooting," NBER Working Papers 26510, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Jon Kleinberg & Annie Liang & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2017. "The Theory is Predictive, but is it Complete? An Application to Human Perception of Randomness," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-025, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 09 Aug 2017.
    20. Chen, Daniel L. & Dunn, Matt & Sagun, Levent & Sirin, Hale, 2017. "Early Predictability of Asylum Court Decisions," TSE Working Papers 17-781, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    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.