Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274055 
Year of Publication: 
2022
Series/Report no.: 
Discussion Papers of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods No. 2022/6
Publisher: 
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn
Abstract: 
Judges are human beings. Is their behavior therefore subject to the same effects that psychology and behavioral economics have documented for convenience samples, like university students? Does that fact that they decide on behalf of third parties moderate their behavior? In which ways does the need matter to find a solution when the evidence is inconclusive and contested? How do the multiple institutional safeguards resulting from procedural law, and the ways how the parties use it, affect judicial decision-making? Many of these questions have been put to the experimental test. The paper provides a systematic overview of the rich evidence, points out gaps that still exist, and discusses methodological challenges.
Subjects: 
judicial decision-making
bias
heuristic
attitudinal model
ambiguity
parallel con-straint satisfaction
public perception
JEL: 
K10
K13
K14
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.