IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v8y2011i4p709-727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Simon
  • Nicholas Scurich

Abstract

This study examined laypeople's evaluations of judicial decision making, specifically of the judicial decision‐making process and the judiciary's legitimacy. Seven‐hundred participants were presented with three judicial decisions, which were portrayed as following on the heels of solid and appropriate legal procedure. Each decision was accompanied by one of four types of reasoning. Participants were asked to evaluate the acceptability of the decisions, focusing on the manner in which they were made and to evaluate the legitimacy of the decisionmaker, all regardless of their outcomes. The study yielded four findings. First, laypeople's judgments were highly contingent on the outcome of the judges' decisions. Consistent with the theory of motivated reasoning, participants found the decisions highly acceptable when they agreed with the judges' decision, but deemed them relatively unacceptable when they disagreed with them. Second, participants were indifferent to the modes of reasoning offered by the judges when they agreed with the outcomes of the decisions, but were differentially sensitive to the modes of reasoning when the judges' decisions frustrated their preferred outcomes. Third, when participants were sensitive to the modes of reasoning, they gave higher ratings of acceptability to decisions that openly admitted to good reasons on both sides of the case as compared with decisions accompanied by reasons that supported one side of the case exclusively. Giving no reasons at all was found to be more acceptable than giving a single, curt reason. Fourth, the findings replicated the coherence effect. Implications for the legitimacy of the judiciary are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:4:p:709-727
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01238.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01238.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01238.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    3. Boiney, Lindsley G. & Kennedy, Jane & Nye, Pete, 1997. "Instrumental Bias in Motivated Reasoning: More When More Is Needed," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Koehler, Jonathan J., 1993. "The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 28-55, October.
    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. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    2. 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.

    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. Mayorga, Diane & Trotman, Ken T., 2016. "The effects of a reasonable investor perspective and firm's prior disclosure policy on managers' disclosure judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 50-62.
    2. Su, Siyan, 2022. "Updating politicized beliefs: How motivated reasoning contributes to polarization," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    6. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    7. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    8. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    10. Faia, Ester & Fuster, Andreas & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2024. "Biases in information selection and processing: Survey evidence from the pandemic," Other publications TiSEM 6a968e65-aa7e-4929-bba2-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    12. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    13. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    14. 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 Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Dickinson, David L., 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias: An Examination of Politics and Religion," IZA Discussion Papers 13241, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    17. Kenworthey Bilz, 2010. "Defending the (Mis)use of Statistics in Law," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 166(1), pages 194-198, March.
    18. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    19. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    20. Jensen, Carsten & Naumann, Elias, 2016. "Increasing pressures and support for public healthcare in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(6), pages 698-705.

    More about this item

    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:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:4:p:709-727. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.