Judicial Decision Making

First Reading

Guthrie, Rachlinski and Wistrich - Blinking on the Bench: How judges Decide Cases

what two types of thinking do judges use

1. fast automatic, instinctive thinking based on intuition (relied on under pressure)

2. slow careful deliberate thinking

Guthrie et al intuitive override model

judges lead with intuition but this can be overriding with reasoning/deliberation sometimes

Gigerenzer & Todd

intuition is an adaptive toolbox, it allows for efficient processing but is reliant on certain circumstances (Context dependant)

Gladwell and Blink

there is power and use of spontaneous decisions known as "thin slicing" (thinking without thinking)

Second reading

Guthrie, Rachlinski and Wistrich: Inside the judicial mind

extraneous factors

judges decision making is impacted by factors such as being tired or hungry, when judges are tired they choose the easiest option and reject requests

criticisms of Danziger et al

1. omitted variables such as lawyer skill and case complexity

2. Weinshall-Margel and Shapard argue that the case order was not random and easier cases may have been scheduled before lunch

3. circadian rhythms/time of day affects decision making

4. fasting during ramadan promotes pro social behaviour

5. Daily quotas → judges may have a quota of how many favourable decisions they may make and if they surpass this, they may begin to give more unfavourable decisions

what key biases are judges faced with

1. Hindsight bias

2. framing

3. overconfidence (in the accuracy of their decision making)

4. anchoring

why do judges have bias

they face time pressure and complex info, so they use mental shortcuts which can distort decision

framing, Guthrie et al

Judges reached different outcomes when cases were framed differently even though the facts were identical

representativeness, guthrie et al

judges rely on stereotypes and patterns, if a case looks like a typical example, judges think it is more likely to be true

vivid detailed stories

Decisions may be influenced by how convincing a story feels, not how likely it is

- availability heuristic

egocentric biases

- judges see thing from their own perspective

- judges overestimate their own fairness/objectivity

- they do not recognise their bias and interpret info in a way that supports their initial view

Third Reading

Danzieger, et al Extraneous Factors in judicial decision making

bat and ball test (Cognitive Reflection Test)

- found that judges frequently defaulted to intuitive thinking and were vulnerable to cognitive shortcuts.

- judges are not irrational, but judicial expertise does not eliminate ordinary human cognitive biases.

- judges often "blink" — making rapid intuitive judgments first, then using legal reasoning afterward to justify or refine those intuitions.

- traditional legal assumption that judges primarily reason in a detached, purely analytical way.

- supported a dual-process model where courtroom decisions are shaped partly by automatic psychological processes and environmental context.

legal formalism, Danzieger et al

application of law to facts of case - deliberative and logical

Whatdoes Neubourne refer to judges as

a highly skilled mechanic

legal realism, Danzieger et al

- judgment by 'hunching,' intuitive - deliberation used to rationalize decisions made by intuition

What are Bartel's models of judicial decision making

Top-down and bottom-up models

top down model

- policy preferences, existing beliefs influence/bias, data is found to support desired outcome

bottom up model

- letting the evidence/data determine the decision, suppression of biases

anchoring, guthrie et al

influence of the initial salient values and attempt to adjust from that anchor

Hindsight bias, Guthrie et al

•When outcome information is known, other information about the event can be reconstrued in light of that outcome

- knowing the outcome of the cases signficantly impacted judges assessment

How did Guthrie et al test representativeness

used the Bryne v Boadle case and found that judges overrated probability range of the barrel breaking as 90% when it was actually 8.3%

Guthrie et al example of judges egocentric/self-serving bias

•over 87.7% of judges considered that at least half their peers would have higher rates of appeal than they would

Susan Bandes "Emotion and Deliberation in the Courtroom"

emotions impact decision making

- emotionally charged environments tend to produce harsher and less rights-protective judicial decisions while reflective emotional awareness can improve fairness and deliberation.

Guthrie et al

"Judges, it seems, are human. Like the rest of us, their judgment is affected by cognitive illusions that can produce systematics errors in judgment

What does Rokeach argue about person values impact on judicial decision making

judges have "Enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct."

What do Guthrie et al suggest to improve judicial decision making?

- increasing judicial awareness and training about cognitive biases,

- encouraging deliberation and written justification rather than snap judgments,

- structuring procedures to reduce irrelevant anchors and framing effects,

- allowing more time and breaks to reduce decision fatigue,

- and using collegial discussion or appellate review to counter individual intuitive errors.

Further Reading One

Cahill-O'Callaghan: The influence of personal values on legal judgments.

Cahill O'Callaghan (2013) - mixed methods study

- Using both qualitative analysis and the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values, the study suggested that judicial decisions are influenced not only by legal doctrine but also by competing moral value systems.

- judicial diversity should perhaps include diversity of values and perspectives, because different value orientations may shape how judges interpret law and justice.

Further Reading Two

Guthrie, Rachlinski, Wistrich: Judging by heuristic

what does Guthrie et al argue about preventing bias

- Judicial expertise and legal training reduce some errors but do not eliminate unconscious psychological influences on decision-making.

- recommend increasing judicial awareness of cognitive biases and designing procedural safeguards that encourage slower, more reflective reasoning.

Further Reading Three

Irwin & Real: Unconscious influences on judicial decision making: The illusion of objectivity.

why is there an illusion of objectivity?

- judges are subject to automatic mental processes that operate outside conscious awareness.

- legal culture often underestimates the extent to which intuition and emotion guide judicial reasoning.

- improving judicial decision-making requires acknowledging and managing unconscious bias rather than relying solely on ideals of impartiality.