Maegherman Enide, Ask Karl, Horselenberg Robert, van Koppen Peter J
University College Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2021 Apr 27;29(3):345-363. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1904452. eCollection 2022.
Having to explain a decision has often been found to have a positive effect on the quality of a decision. We aimed to determine whether different accountability requirements for judges (i.e., having to justify their decision or having to explicate their decision) affect evidence use. Those requirements were compared to instructions based on the falsification principle and a control condition. Participants (N = 173) decided on the defendant's guilt in a murder case vignette and explained their decision according to the instructions. The explication and falsification (but not the justification) instructions increased the use of exonerating evidence. There was no significant difference between the groups in guilt perception. The use of exonerating evidence was a significant positive predictor of acquittal rates. The implications for the different forms of instructions in practice are positive, but suggest a difference between the evidence considered and the evidence used to account for the decision.
人们常常发现，必须对一项决策作出解释会对决策质量产生积极影响。我们旨在确定对法官的不同问责要求（即必须为其决策辩护或必须阐述其决策）是否会影响证据的使用。将这些要求与基于证伪原则的指示以及一个控制条件进行比较。参与者（N = 173）在一个谋杀案 vignette 中判定被告是否有罪，并根据指示解释他们的决定。阐述和证伪（而非辩护）指示增加了无罪证据的使用。各组在有罪认知方面没有显著差异。无罪证据的使用是无罪判决率的一个显著正向预测指标。这些不同形式的指示在实践中的影响是积极的，但表明在考虑的证据与用于解释决策的证据之间存在差异。
