Extra-legal Influences on Judging through the Lens of Psychology
Vol.30,No.2(2022)
Empirical research on judicial decision-making faces many obstacles, especially in the Czech Republic. Therefore, publication of Extralegal Influences on the Decision-Making of the Czech Constitutional Court is an important step forward. The publication deserves credit for both its aim and its execution. However, future research should focus on a psychological perspective, e.g., by examining heuristics, cognitive closure, and cognitive styles. Such an endeavor is only possible if judges choose to participate. Thus, this paper also aims to introduce psychological research in judicial decision-making as a discipline that needs to be respectful towards participants and needs to develop a cooperative relationship with them.
Judges; Courts; Psychology of Judicial Decision-making; Psychology and Law; Cognitive Closure; Cognitive Heuristics; Cooperative Research; Empirical Legal Studies; Extra-legal Influences on Judicial Decision-making
443–450
BEM, S., JONG, H. L. de. Theoretical Issues in Psychology: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
BYSTRANOWSKI, P., BARTOSZ, J., PRÓCHNICKI, M., SKÓRSKA, P.. Anchoring Effect in Legal Decision-Making: A Meta-Analysis. Law and Human Behavior. 2021. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000438
DYEVRE, A. Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: towards a general theory of judicial behaviour. European Political Science Review. 2010, roč. 2, č. 2, s. 297–327.
GIGERENZER, G., ENGEL, Ch. (eds.). Heuristics and the Law. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3488.001.0001
GIGERENZER, G., HERTWIG, R., PACHUR, T. (eds.). Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744282.001.0001
GUTHRIE, C., RACHLINSKI, J. J., WISTRICH, A. Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Review. 2007, č. 93, s. 1–44.
HARAŠTA, J., SMEJKALOVÁ, T., NOVOTNÁ, T., ŠAVELKA. J., POLČÁK, R., KASL, F., LOUTOCKÝ, P., MÍŠEK, J. Citační analýza judikatury. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2021.
HUTCHESON, J. C. Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the Hunch in Judicial Decision. Cornell Law Review. 1929, roč. 14, č. 3. Dostupné z: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol14/iss3/2/
KLEIN, R. A. a kol. Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225
LACKO, D., PROŠEK, T., ČENĚK, J., HELÍSKOVÁ, M., UGWITZ, P., SVOBODA, V., POČAJI, P., VAIS, M., HALÍŘOVÁ, H., JUŘÍK, V., ŠAŠINKA, Č. A Preregistered Validation Study of Methods Measuring Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles: What do We Actually Measure and How Well? PsyArXiv preprints. 2021, 93 s. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p6hr7
MARTINEK, W. L. Judges as Members of Small Groups. In: KLEIN, D., MITCHELL, G. (eds.). The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, s. 73–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0005
MITCHELL, G., TETLOCK, P. E.. Cognitive Style and Judging. In: KLEIN, D., MITCHELL, G. (eds.). The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, s. 279–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0017
NIROVÁ, E. Approaching the bench: accessing elites on the judiciary for qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2017. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1324669
PALÍŠEK, P. Kognitivní heuristiky v rozhodování českých soudců. Bakalářská práce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií, 2018. Dostupné z: https://is.muni.cz/th/rjhjp/
PALÍŠEK, P. Dispositional Epistemics of Czech Judges. Diplomová práce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií, 2021. Dostupné z: https://is.muni.cz/th/vtbbi/
PENNYCOOK, G., FUGELSANG, J. A., KOEHLER, D. J. What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology. 2015. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
RACHLINSKI, J. J., WISTRICH, A. J.. Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2017, roč. 13, č. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032
ROETS, A., W. KRUGLANSKI, A., KOSSOWSKA, M., PIERRO, A., HONG, Y.. The Motivated Gatekeeper of Our Minds: New Directions in Need for Closure Theory and Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001
SHESHTOWSKY, D., HOROWITZ, L. M.. How the need for cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior. 2004, roč. 28, č. 3, s. 305–337. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000029141.46850.fb
SCHIMMACK, U. A Meta-Scientific Perspective on “Thinking: Fast and Slow“. Replication Index. 2020. Dostupné z: https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-perspective-on-thinking-fast-and-slow/
THOMPSONOVÁ, V. A. Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In: EVANS, J., FRANKISH, K. (eds.). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008
TVERSKY, A., KAHNEMAN, D. Judgment under Certainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974, s. 1124–1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2022 Petr Palíšek