Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making

Abstract

Legal judgments require one to make sense of a complex set of typically contradicting pieces of information that can easily be interpreted in a biased manner. This systematic judgment bias can be caused by biased information search (i.e., confirmatory search) as well as biased information processing (i.e., coherence effects) in which the interpretation of information is changed to fit the emerging favored option. In four studies, we investigate the complex interplay between both kinds of influences. Participants completed three legal cases in which they could freely search for information. We manipulated between subjects whether systematic search was possible or not and measured the assessment of each selected piece of information. In line with previous studies, we observe strong coherence effects in each study, in that the evidence interpretation strongly depended on the current tendency towards acquittal or conviction. In contrast to our expectation, however, people searched for information that was contrary to their current belief in the given case (i.e., disconfirmatory information search). We also observed a trend towards an interaction between both factors, in that coherence effects were slightly stronger for neutral and pro-guilty evidence when systematic information search was possible. Our results underline an unconscious striving for coherence when making complex judgments that is not easily corrected.