Abstract
Traditional and mainstream legal frameworks conceive law primarily as a purely rational practice, free from affect or intuition. However, substantial evidence indicates that human decision-making depends upon diverse biases. We explored the manifestation of these biases through comparisons among 45 criminal judges, 60 criminal attorneys, and 64 controls. We examined whether these groups’ decision-making patterns were influenced by (a) the information on the transgressor’s mental state, (b) the use of gruesome language in harm descriptions, and (c) ongoing physiological states. Judges and attorneys were similar to controls in that they overestimated the damage caused by intentional harm relative to accidental harm. However, judges and attorneys were less biased towards punishments and harm severity ratings to accidental harms. Similarly, they were less influenced in their decisions by either language manipulations or physiological arousal. Our findings suggest that specific expertise developed in legal settings can attenuate some pervasive biases in moral decision processes.
Highlights
In legal settings, decision-making ideally requires unbiased, rational, and shared good reasons to guarantee fair processes
Whereas previous studies using language manipulations have focused only on punishment ratings (Treadway et al, 2014), here we investigated the impact of gruesome language (GL) on three aspects of moral decision-making: morality (Moll et al, 2005), punishment (Cushman, 2008), and harm severity ratings (Decety and Cowell, 2018; Sousa et al, 2009)
Across groups and accidental and intentional scenarios, participants exposed to GL, compared to those faced with plain language (PL), rated harmful actions as morally worse (F1,163 = 4.77, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.02)
Summary
Decision-making ideally requires unbiased, rational, and shared good reasons to guarantee fair processes. Traditional legal ethos conceives law primarily as a rational field in which affect or intuition must take a secondary place (Gewirtz, 1996), human decision-making is influenced by cognitive and emotional factors (Ames and Fiske, 2013; Greene and Haidt, 2002; Treadway et al, 2014). Unlike rules and principles, non-rational considerations tend to be hidden or overlooked. Due to their relevance for legal contexts, our aim is to further illuminate the interaction of these factors in legal decision-makers. We explored the moral decisions of criminal judges, criminal attorneys, and controls, focusing on moral evaluation, punishment assignment, and harm assessment of thirdparty aggressions (Treadway et al, 2014). We evaluated the influence of (a) information on the transgressor’s mental state, (b) the use of gruesome language (GL) in harm descriptions, and (c) ongoing physiological states
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
