Reasons Pro et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Contexts
Zenker, Frank LU
; Dahlman, Christian
LU
; Bååth, Rasmus
LU
and Sarwar, Farhan
LU
(2018)
In Psychological Reports
121(3).
p.511-526
- Abstract
- Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than... (More)
- Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than professional judges did. We discuss challenges for future research, calling other research groups to contribute additional samples. (Less)
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than... (More)
- Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than professional judges did. We discuss challenges for future research, calling other research groups to contribute additional samples. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/5f9f3e51-4d39-49bb-8c57-cd58b349dfa8
- author
- Zenker, Frank
LU
; Dahlman, Christian
LU
; Bååth, Rasmus
LU
and Sarwar, Farhan
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2018
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Rättsvetenskap, Filosofi, Psykologi
- in
- Psychological Reports
- volume
- 121
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 511 - 526
- publisher
- Ammons Scientific
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:29298563
- scopus:85045056867
- ISSN
- 0033-2941
- DOI
- 10.1177/0033294117729807
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 5f9f3e51-4d39-49bb-8c57-cd58b349dfa8
- date added to LUP
- 2017-12-18 18:05:24
- date last changed
- 2022-06-05 12:38:20
@article{5f9f3e51-4d39-49bb-8c57-cd58b349dfa8,
abstract = {{Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than professional judges did. We discuss challenges for future research, calling other research groups to contribute additional samples.}},
author = {{Zenker, Frank and Dahlman, Christian and Bååth, Rasmus and Sarwar, Farhan}},
issn = {{0033-2941}},
keywords = {{Law; Philosophy; Psychology; Rättsvetenskap; Filosofi; Psykologi}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{511--526}},
publisher = {{Ammons Scientific}},
series = {{Psychological Reports}},
title = {{Reasons Pro et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Contexts}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033294117729807}},
doi = {{10.1177/0033294117729807}},
volume = {{121}},
year = {{2018}},
}