Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274055 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2022
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
Discussion Papers of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods No. 2022/6
Verlag: 
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn
Zusammenfassung: 
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.
Schlagwörter: 
judicial decision-making
bias
heuristic
attitudinal model
ambiguity
parallel con-straint satisfaction
public perception
JEL: 
K10
K13
K14
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
2.23 MB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.