Judicial Decision Making: Intuitive and Rational Information Processing
Articles
Tomas Maceina
Vilnius University
Gintautas Valickas
Vilnius University
Published 2019-02-20
https://doi.org/10.15388/Teise.2019.110.4
PDF
HTML

Keywords

intuitive information processing
rational information processing
dual processing
judicial decision making

How to Cite

Maceina T. and Valickas G. (2019) “Judicial Decision Making: Intuitive and Rational Information Processing”, Teisė, 1100, pp. 61-79. doi: 10.15388/Teise.2019.110.4.

Abstract

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English]

The contributions of judges’ intuitive and rational information processing making decisions on criminal (robbery) cases were evaluated. Results are interpreted in the context of cognitive psychology and discussed in relation to the contemporary trends and future perspectives in the field of legal decsion-making.

Summary

The aim of the current study is to investigate the contributions of judges’ intuitive and rational information processing making decisions on criminal (robbery) cases. 98 judges working in various courts of Lithuania‘s general jurisdiction participated in this study. We asked participants to solve two vignettes. One vignette was designed to be compatible with intuitive information processing (i. e., anchor provided at the end of the vignette suggested a correct decision), while another counter-intuitive (i. e., anchor suggested incorrect decision). 51 judges were instructed to solve vignettes intuiti- vely under a limit time (intuitive group), 47 judges – rationally with no time constraints (rational group). Results of the current study revealed that intuitive group decided on higher sentences (i.e. was closer to an anchor), compared to rational group. Additonally, we found that judges’ in rational group rational information processing contributed to 53.19%, and intuitive information processing – to 8,51% of all decision-making process. Moreover, judges’ in intuitive group rational information processing contributed to 35.29%, and intuitive information processing – to 15,68% of all decision-making process. Results are interpreted in the context of cognitive psychology.

PDF
HTML
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Please read the Copyright Notice in Journal Policy