English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  What the Judge Argues is Not What the Judge Thinks – Eye Tracking as a Window into Judicial Decision Making

Engel, C., & Rahal, R.-M. (2020). What the Judge Argues is Not What the Judge Thinks – Eye Tracking as a Window into Judicial Decision Making.

Item is

Files

show Files

Locators

show
hide
Description:
-

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Engel, Christoph1, Author              
Rahal, Rima-Maria1, Author              
Affiliations:
1Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Max Planck Society, ou_2173688              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: legal decision-making, ambiguity, balancing, parallel constraint satisfaction, coherence shift, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, eye tracking
 JEL: D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
 JEL: D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
 JEL: K13 - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
 JEL: K40 - General
 JEL: D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
 Abstract: Legal cases are frequently inconclusive. One source of inconclusiveness is the necessity to balance conceptually incompatible normative considerations. Still the judiciary seems to do so reasonably well. How can it? In this study, we exploit eye tracking as a window into the mental process. A first study tests whether information processing reflects the degree of normative conflict, and whether it is influenced by the ultimate disposition of the case, which is induced by assigning participants an adversarial role. These expectations are not borne out by the data. But the number and the duration of fixations on the features of the case, as recorded with eye tracking, accurately predict the disposition. A second study builds on the psychological theory of parallel constraint satisfaction. The theory posits that ambiguous problems are made tractable by gradually transforming the inputs until a coherent representation emerges. The mental process can be inferred from the explicit reevaluation of the inputs after the decision has been made. The study combines this method with eye tracking. Both measures predict outcomes with almost the same accuracy, but are uncorrelated. Eye tracking shows that the process of finding the solution and the explicit representation of the outcome are distinct mental activities.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2022-06-282020-01-27
 Publication Status: Published online
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: Bonn : Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Discussion Paper 2020/3
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: Other: 2020/3
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source

show