Judicial Decision-Making From An Empirical Perspective

Open access

ABSTRACT

The traditional theories of judicial decision-making have their differences set around the importance of logical, rule-bound, and step-by-step reasoning. For legal formalists, judicial decision-making is predominantly a logical and rule-bound process, and ideally it is a product of syllogistic reasoning. For original legal realists and their contemporary counterparts, judicial decision-making is rarely a logical, step-by-step, and rule-bound process; more often than not, it is better epitomized by intuitive decisions. For a long time this question remained open. The purpose of this article is accordingly twofold. First, by relying on empirical research on decision-making, we argue that logical and rule-bound judicial decision-making, although possible in theory, is highly unlikely in practice. Second, by relying on indirect empirical evidence, we show that judges are very likely to possess unexceptional decision-making skills even when it comes to aspects of decision-making that have not been specifically tested on judges.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Bedard Jean Michelene T. H. Chi Lynford E. Graham and James Shanteau. “Expertise in Auditing.” Auditing 12 (1993): 1-25.

  • 2. Carruthers Peter. “An Architecture for Dual Reasoning”: 109-128. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes andBeyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.

  • 3. Camerer Colin F. and Eric J. Johnson. “The Process-Performance Paradox in Expert Judgment: How Can Experts Know So Much and Predict So Badly?”: 195-217. In: K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith eds. Toward a GeneralTheory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. New York: Cambridge University Press 1991.

  • 4. Chen Serena and Shelly Chaiken. “The Heuristic-Systemic Model in Its Broader Context”: 73-96. In: Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press 1999.

  • 5. Colvin Geoffrey. Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-ClassPerformers From Everybody Else. New York: Penguin Books 2008.

  • 6. Danzigera Shai Jonathan Levav and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences(USA) 108 (2011): 6889-92.

  • 7. Desvousges William H. F. Reed Johnson Richard W. Dunford Kevin J. Boyle Sara P. Hudson and K. Nicole Wilson. “Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability”: 91-159. In: Jerry A. Hausman ed. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland 1993.

  • 8. Englich Birte Thomas Mussweiler and Fritz Strack. “Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 (2006): 188-200.

  • 9. Ericsson K. Anders. “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance”: 685-706. In: Ericsson K. Anders N. Charness P. Feltovich and R. R. Hoffman eds. The CambridgeHandbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006.

  • 10. Ericsson K. Anders. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to Some of the Issues”: 1-50. In: K. Anders Ericsson ed. The Road toExcellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and SciencesSports and Games. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 1996.

  • 11. Ericsson K. Anders N. Charness P. Feltovich and R. R. Hoffman eds. TheCambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006.

  • 12. Evans Jonathan St. B. T. “How Many Dual-Process Theories Do We Need? One Two or Many?”: 33-54. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.

  • 13. Frankish Keith and Jonathan St. B. T. Evans. “The Duality of Mind: An Historical Perspective”: 1-32. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish eds. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.

  • 14. Frederick Shane. “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.” Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 19 (2005): 25-42.

  • 15. Gilovich Thomas. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of HumanReason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press 1991.

  • 16. Guthrie Chris Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93 (2007): 1-44.

  • 17. Guthrie Chris Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Andrew J. Wistrich. “Inside the Judicial Mind.” Cornell Law Review 86 (2001): 777-830.

  • 18. Hutcheson Joseph C. Jr. “The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the 'Hunch’ in Judicial Decision.” Cornell Law Journal 14 (1929): 274-288.

  • 19. Kahneman Daniel and Shane Frederick. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment”: 49-81. In: Thomas Gilovich Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman eds. Heuristics and Biases: ThePsychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.

  • 20. Kahneman Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux 2011.

  • 21. Kiser Randall. Beyond Right and Wrong: The Power of Effective DecisionMaking for Attorneys and Clients. Heidelberg: Springer 2010.

  • 22. Krieger Stefan. “The Development of Legal Reasoning Skills in Law Students: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Legal Education 56 (2006): 332-355.

  • 23. Lehman Darrin R. Richard O. Lempert and Richard E. Nisbett. “The Effects of Graduate Training on Reasoning: Formal Discipline and Thinking about Everyday-life Events.” American Psychologist 43 (1988): 431-442. Reprinted in: Richard E. Nisbett ed. Rules for Reasoning. New Jersey: Routledge 1993.

  • 24. Leiter Brian. “Positivism Formalism Realism.” Columbia Law Review 99 (1999):1138-1164.

  • 25. Posner Richard A. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2008.

  • 26. Radin Max. “Legal Realism.” Columbia Law Review 31 (1931): 824-828.

  • 27. Radin Max. “The Theory of Judicial Decisions: Or How Judges Think.” American Bar Association Journal 11 (1925): 357-362.

  • 28. Schauer Frederick. “Is There a Psychology of Judging?”: 103-120. In: David E. Klein and Gregory Mitchell eds. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making (American Psychology-Law Society). New York: Oxford University Press 2010.

  • 29. Schauer Frederick. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to LegalReasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2009.

  • 30. Shah Anuj K. and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. “Heuristics Made Easy: An Effort- Reduction Framework.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (2008): 207-222.

  • 31. Stanovich Keith E. “Distinguishing the Reflective Algorithmic and Autonomous Minds: Is it Time for a Tri-Process Theory?”: 55-88. In: Jonathan Evans and Keith Frankish eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009.

  • 32. Strak Fritz and Thomas Mussweiler. “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 73 (1997): 437-446.

  • 33. Sullivan William M. Anne Colby Judith Welch Wegner Lloyd Bond Lee S. Shulman. Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law (Jossey- Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). California: Jossey-Bass 2007.

  • 34. Tamanaha Brian Z. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide. Princeton: Princeton University Press 2010.

  • 35. Tetlock Philip E. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can WeKnow? Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 2005.

  • 36. Tiedens Larissa Z. and Susan Linton. “Judgment under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 973-988.

  • 37. Toplak Maggie E. Richard F. West and Keith E. Stanovich. “The Cognitive Reflection Test as a Predictor of Performance on Heuristics-and-Biases Tasks.” Memory & Cognition 39 (2011): 1275-1289.

  • 38. Tversky Amos and Daniel Kahneman. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (1974): 1124-1130.

  • 39. Tumonis Vitalius. “Legal Realism & Judicial Decision-making.” Jurisprudence 19 (2012): 1361-1382.

  • 40. Vohs Kathleen D. and Mary Frances Luce. “Judgment and Decision Making”: 733-756. In: Roy F. Baumeister and Eli J. Finkel eds. Advanced SocialPsychology: The State of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010.

  • 41. Vohs Kathleen D. Roy F. Baumeister Brandon J. Schmeichel Jean M. Twenge Noelle M. Nelson and Dianne M. Tice. “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-control: A Limited Resource Account of Decision Making Self-regulation and Active Initiative.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 94 (2008): 883-898.

  • 42. Wilson Timothy D. and Jonathan W. Schooler. “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1991): 181-192.

  • 1. Adam Barbara and Joost Loon. “Repositioning Risk; the Challenge for Social Theory”: 1-31. In: Barbara Adam Ulrich Beck and Joost Loon eds. The RiskSociety and Beyond. Sage Publications 2005.

  • 2. Apklausa: VAI šalininkų ir priešininkų yra beveik po lygiai (Survey: VNPPSupporters and Opponents Are Almost Equal)) // http://klaipeda.diena.lt/naujienos/ekonomika/apklausa-vae-salininku-irpriesininku- yra-beveik-po-lygiai-428441#axzz2AJ7Ld26A (accessed June 12 2013).

  • 3. Augutis Juozas Ričardas Krikštolaitis Dainius Genys and Giedrius Česnakas eds. Lietuvos energetinis saugumas. Metinė apžvalga. 2011-2012 (LithuanianEnergy Security. Annual Review. 2011-2012.). Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University 2013.

  • 4. Baločkaitė Rasa and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Branduolinės energetikos diskursai Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje ir viešojoje nuomonėje: nuostatų takoskyros ir ‘kalbančiųjų klasės’ formavimasis rizikos visuomenėje” (“Nuclear Power Discourse in Lithuanian Mass Media and Public Opinion: Attitudinal Divergences and the Emerging Talking and Acting Classes in the Risk Society”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 20 No. 4 (2009): 259-270.

  • 5. Balžekienė Aistė. Socialinis branduolinės rizikos suvokimas: teorinės įžvalgosir jų refleksija Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriuose į Ignalinos AE (SocialPerception of Nuclear Risk: Theoretical Insights and its Reflection inLithuanian Society Perception Towards Ignalina NPP). Ph.D. thesis. Kaunas: Kaunas University of Technology 2006.

  • 6. Beck Ulrich. “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society Vol. 35 No. 3 (2006): 329-345.

  • 7. Bourdieu Pierre. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory Vol. 7 No. 1 (1989): 14-25.

  • 8. Česnakas Giedrius. “Energy Security Challenges Concepts and Controversy of Energy Nationalism in Lithuanian Energy Politics.” Baltic Journal of Law andPolitics 6:1 (2013) [forthcoming].

  • 9. Foucault Michel. Diskurso tvarka (The Order of Discourse). Vilnius: Baltos lankos 1998.

  • 10. Foucault Michel. Disciplinuoti ir bausti. Kalėjimo gimimas (To Discipline andto Punish: The Birth of the Prison). Vilnius: Baltos lankos 1998.

  • 11. Gaidys Vladas and Leonardas Rinkevičius. “Černobylio baimė pigios energijos nauda ar kai kas daugiau? Dvidešimties metų visuomenės nuomonės apie Ignalinos AE sociologiniai tyrimai Lietuvoje” (“The Scares of Chernobyl the Favoring of Cheap Energy or Something More? Twenty Years of Sociological Public Opinion Polls in Lithuania on the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant”). Filosofija. Sociologija Vol. 19 No. 4 (2008): 102-111.

  • 12. Genys Dainius and Eigintas Aleksandravičius. “Bendro vardiklio beieškant - Lietuvos energetinio saugumo orientyrai ekspertiniu požiūriu” (“Searching for Common Denominator - The Guidlines of Lithuania’s Energy Security in Expert Point of View”). Politikos mokslų almanachas No. 12 (2012): 63-84.

  • 13. Janeliūnas Tomas. “Lithuanian Energy Strategy and its Implications on Regional Cooperation”: 190-222. In: Andris Sprūds and Toms Rostoks eds.

  • Energy: Pulling the Baltic Sea Region together or apart? Riga: Zinatne 2009.

  • 14. Lyotard J. Francois. Postmodernus būvis (Postmodern State). Vilnius: Baltos lankos 1993.

  • 15. Molis Arūnas. Lietuvos geoenergetinio saugumo politikos gairės ir Lietuvosgeoenergetinių alternatyvų paieškos trumpuoju ir vidutiniu laikotarpiu (TheGuidelines of Lithuanian Geo-Energetic Security and Search for LithuanianGeo-Energetic Alternatives in Short-term and Medium Periods). Vilnius: Centre for Strategic Studies 2006.

  • 16. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania. The National EnergyIndependence Strategy. Vilnius 2012.

  • 17. Telešienė Audronė. “Kritiškosios diskurso analizės metodologinių principų taikymas sociologiniuose tyrimuose” (“Application of the Methodological Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis to Sociological Research”). Filosofija.

  • Sociologija Vol. 16 No. 2 (2005): 1-6.

  • 18. Van Dijk Teun A. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2008.

  • 19. Van Dijk Teun A. “Discourse Ideology and Context.” Paper for the 7th International Conference of Pragmatics. Budapest (July 2000). FoliaLinguistica XXX/1-2 (2001): 11-40.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.281

Target audience: researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 432 241 10
PDF Downloads 246 150 11