Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
2.6
2.5
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Special Issues
Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making
share announcement

Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making

A special issue of Behavioral Sciences (ISSN 2076-328X). This special issue belongs to the section "Social Psychology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 27 May 2025 | Viewed by 4744

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Kayla Burd

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
Interests: extra-legal bias; perception; memory; reasoning; decision making; jurors; juries
Dr. Hannah Phalen

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
Interests: legal decision-making; jurors; juries; racial bias; gender bias; emotion

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The legal system makes countless assumptions about how people think and act (e.g., jurors are able to set aside their biases, eyewitness memory acts as a videotape). But when those assumptions are erroneous, the consequences can be life-changing. Thus, it is critical for researchers to empirically examine how and when social cognitive processes can challenge and inform the legal system’s assumptions about human behavior. In this Special Issue, we seek research examining the role of social cognitive processes in legal decision making, broadly construed.  We welcome all submissions related to decision making in legal contexts, including but not limited to decision making among eyewitnesses, judges, attorneys, jurors and juries, police officers, and forensic examiners. We also welcome submissions from a broad range of disciplines, including psychology, law, criminal justice, criminology, sociology, and political science, among others.

Abstract Deadline: October 30, 2024
Notification of Abstract Acceptance: November 15, 2024

Dr. Kayla Burd
Dr. Hannah Phalen
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Behavioral Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • psychology
  • law
  • social cognition
  • social cognitive processes
  • decision making
  • judgment
  • reasoning
  • memory
  • prejudice
  • bias

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

22 pages, 877 KiB  
Article
Public Perceptions of Judges’ Use of AI Tools in Courtroom Decision-Making: An Examination of Legitimacy, Fairness, Trust, and Procedural Justice
by Anna Fine, Emily R. Berthelot and Shawn Marsh
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 476; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040476 - 6 Apr 2025
Viewed by 713
Abstract
This study examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial decision-making, focusing on bail and sentencing contexts. We examined public perceptions of judges who use AI tools compared to those who rely solely on expertise. Using an experimental design, participants (N = [...] Read more.
This study examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial decision-making, focusing on bail and sentencing contexts. We examined public perceptions of judges who use AI tools compared to those who rely solely on expertise. Using an experimental design, participants (N = 1800; stratified by race/ethnicity and gender) were presented with vignettes depicting judges using varying levels of AI assistance. Key outcomes included perceptions of judicial legitimacy, procedural justice, and trust in AI, with analyses stratified by racial groups (Black, Hispanic, White). The results revealed that judges relying on expertise were generally rated higher in legitimacy than those using AI; however, significant racial differences emerged. Black participants showed greater trust and perceived fairness in AI-augmented decisions compared to White and Hispanic participants. Open-ended responses further highlighted social psychological themes regarding the symbolic meaning of AI in judicial processes. These findings underscore the complexity of integrating AI in the judiciary, emphasizing the need for transparent and equitable implementation strategies to maintain public trust and fairness. Future research should explore underlying factors influencing these perceptions to inform policies that address racial disparities and enhance trust in AI-assisted legal decision-making. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

32 pages, 3256 KiB  
Article
Analyzing the Successful Incompetent to Be Executed Cases in the United States: A First Pass
by I-An Su, John H. Blume and Stephen J. Ceci
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(3), 325; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030325 - 6 Mar 2025
Viewed by 969
Abstract
More than three decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that individuals who are not competent (alternatively referred to by the Court as insane) at the time of their scheduled execution cannot be put to death. Despite the years [...] Read more.
More than three decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that individuals who are not competent (alternatively referred to by the Court as insane) at the time of their scheduled execution cannot be put to death. Despite the years that have passed since the Court’s decision and the literal life-or-death stakes involved, competency for execution (CFE) remains underexplored in the psychological, psychiatric, and legal literature. A number of important legal and ethical issues that arise when a person on death row maintains they are not competent to be executed are still unresolved even after the landmark Supreme Court cases such as Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), and Madison v. Alabama (2019). In this first-of-its-kind descriptive study, we analyzed the demographic and case characteristics of the 28 successful Ford claimants—individuals in the United States who have been found to be incompetent to be executed and compared them to the general death row population and homicide cases nationwide. Our findings reveal some similarities but also some differences between these claimants and the general death row population and homicide cases: the successful Ford claimants are exclusively male (in keeping with the general prison population on death row), relatively older, and underrepresented among White and Latinx inmates (i.e., Black claimants are more successful than their White and Latinx counterparts at evading execution). Nearly all (96%) suffer from schizophrenia, with 79% experiencing psychiatric comorbidity, yet only 54% received any significant treatment before or after the criminal offense. The claimants’ cases also involve a higher proportion of child victims, male family members, and female non-family member victims, as well as more multiple-victim cases (not indiscriminate) and fewer intraracial homicides. Fewer victims are male, and more are female. However, the cases do not align with typical male-on-male violent crimes or femicide patterns, such as those involving sexual or domestic violence. Additionally, systematic psycho-legal deficiencies are prevalent, including a low rate of mental health evidence (61%) presented at trials and some cases lacking psychiatric involvement in CFE evaluations. Temporal influence and drastic state variations on CFE evaluation are also noted. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, this small-scale descriptive study offers a number of important insights into the complexities of CFE decisions and lays the groundwork for future research and policy development. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 582 KiB  
Article
Can Jurors Disregard Inadmissible Evidence? Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to Test Interventions Derived from Cognitive and Social Psychological Theories
by Pamela N. Sandberg, Tess M. S. Neal and Karey L. O’Hara
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010007 - 26 Dec 2024
Viewed by 725
Abstract
Inadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence—even when admissible evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common legal remedy is judicial instructions to [...] Read more.
Inadmissible evidence generally biases jurors toward guilty verdicts; jurors who hear inadmissible evidence are more likely to convict than jurors not exposed to inadmissible evidence—even when admissible evidence is constant. When inadmissible evidence is introduced, the common legal remedy is judicial instructions to jurors to disregard it. Appeals courts repeatedly affirm instructions to disregard as a sufficient safeguard of defendants’ constitutional rights, despite research finding that jurors do not disregard when instructed. The goals of this research were to (1) test the main and interactive effects of four theory-driven candidate strategies to help jurors disregard inadmissible evidence (i.e., inducing suspicion, giving a substantive reason for disregarding, committing to disregarding, advising future jurors) and identify an optimized intervention package, and (2) evaluate whether adding the optimized intervention package showed more favorable effects than judicial instructions only. Study 1 used a 24 full factorial randomized controlled trial to evaluate the four candidate intervention strategies. A synergistic interaction among the candidate components suggested an optimized intervention package comprising all four interventions. Study 2 used a parallel four-arm randomized controlled trial to compare conviction rates in the same hypothetical murder trial under four conditions: (1) no exposure to inadmissible evidence, (2) exposure to inadmissible evidence without objection, (3) exposure to inadmissible evidence + judicial instructions (“standard practice”), and (4) exposure + judicial instructions + optimized intervention package. Across both studies, mock jurors who received the optimized intervention package returned significantly lower conviction rates than comparison conditions. These findings show early promise that novel intervention strategies may assist jurors in disregarding inadmissible evidence. Interpretation, limitations, and calls to action are discussed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 1050 KiB  
Article
Punishment after Life: How Attitudes about Longer-than-Life Sentences Expose the Rules of Retribution
by Eyal Aharoni, Eddy Nahmias, Morris B. Hoffman and Sharlene Fernandes
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 855; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090855 - 23 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1792
Abstract
Prison sentences that exceed the natural lifespan present a puzzle because they have no more power to deter or incapacitate than a single life sentence. In three survey experiments, we tested the extent to which participants support these longer-than-life sentences under different decision [...] Read more.
Prison sentences that exceed the natural lifespan present a puzzle because they have no more power to deter or incapacitate than a single life sentence. In three survey experiments, we tested the extent to which participants support these longer-than-life sentences under different decision contexts. In Experiment 1, 130 undergraduates made hypothetical prison sentence-length recommendations for a serious criminal offender, warranting two sentences to be served either concurrently or consecutively. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 182) and an undergraduate pilot sample (N = 260), participants in Experiments 2 and 3 voted on a hypothetical ballot measure to either allow or prohibit the use of consecutive life sentences. Results from all experiments revealed that, compared to concurrent life sentences participants supported the use of consecutive life sentences for serious offenders. In addition, they adjusted these posthumous years in response to mitigating factors in a manner that was indistinguishable from ordinary sentences (Experiment 1), and their support for consecutive life sentencing policies persisted, regardless of the default choice and whether the policy was costly to implement (Experiments 2 and 3). These judgment patterns were most consistent with retributive punishment heuristics and have implications for sentencing policy and for theories of punishment behavior. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Cognitive Processes in Legal Decision Making)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop