Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T14:23:29.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Judicial Decision-Making

from Part I - Introduction Chapters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

Monica K. Miller
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access


The strength of the judiciary depends upon fair and impartial jurists who can make complex decisions while minimizing bias. This chapter provides an overview of how psychological processes can affect judicial decision-making at every stage of the judicial process, including decisions at pretrial hearings related to dispositive motions (e.g., motions to dismiss). The chapter begins with an overview of how judges might use heuristics (cognitive “shortcuts”) when making decisions, followed by discussions of how emotions, inferences, and implicit associations each can affect judicial decision-making. The chapter concludes with recommendations to expand judicial education on issues related to psychological science. For example, although many judicial education courses address implicit bias, research finds that the limited effectiveness and duration of these trainings warrant further study. Overall, we urge judicial educators to familiarize themselves with psychological research, expand course content, and offer an evidence-based educational approach that allows judges to apply lessons from psychology in their chambers and courtrooms.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Abrams, D. S., Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2012). Do judges vary in their treatment of race? The Journal of Legal Studies, 41(2), 347383.Google Scholar
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), 556 US 662.Google Scholar
Barden, J., Maddux, W. W., Petty, R. E., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). Contextual moderation of racial bias: The impact of social roles of controlled and automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 522. Scholar
Bennett, M. W. (2017). The implicit racial bias in sentencing: The next frontier. Yale Law Journal: Forum, 126, 391405.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 788799. Scholar
Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L. & Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 389411. Scholar
Breyer, S. B. (2021). The authority of the court and the peril of politics. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., & Skórska, P. (2021). Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 123. Scholar
Cantone, J. A. & Wiener, R. L. (2017). Religion at work: Evaluating hostile work environment religious discrimination claims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 351366. Scholar
Casey, P., Warren, R. K., Cheesman II, F. L., & Elek, J. K. (2012). Helping courts address implicit bias. National Center for State Courts. Scholar
Chew, P. K. & Kelley, R. E. (2009). Myth of the color-blind judge: An empirical analysis of racial harassment cases. Washington University Law Review, 86(5), 11171166.Google Scholar
Chew, P. K. & Kelley, R. E. (2012). The realism of race in judicial decision making: An empirical analysis of plaintiffs’ race and judges’ race. Harvard Journal on Racial & Ethnic Justice, 28, 91115.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. A. (2018). Explicit bias. Northwestern University Law Review, 113(3), 505586.Google Scholar
Cox, A. B. & Miles, J. (2008). Judging the voting rights act. Columbia Law Review, 108(1), 154.Google Scholar
D’Ailly, H. H., Murray, H. G., & Corkill, A. (1995) Cognitive effects of self-referencing. Continuing Educational Psychology, 20(1), 88113. Scholar
Dasgupta, N. & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 800814. Scholar
Dasgupta, N. & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 268280.Google Scholar
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 12671278. Scholar
Donald, B. B., Rachlinski, J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2020). Mindfulness and judging. Judicature 104(3): 7580Google Scholar
Drápal, J. & Pina-Sánchez, J. (2022). What is the value of judicial experience? Exploring judge trajectories using longitudinal data. Justice Quarterly. Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). Strategies for change: Research initiatives and recommendations to improve police-community relations in Oakland, Calif. Stanford University, SPARQ: Social Psychological Answers to Real-world Questions. Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L. (2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. P. & Miller, M. K. (2019). An assessment of judges’ self-reported experiences of secondary traumatic stress. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 70(2), 729.Google Scholar
Farhang, S. & Wawro, G. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the US Courts of Appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20(2), 299330.Google Scholar
Fogel, J. (2017). Mindfulness and judging. Judicature 101(1), 1416.Google Scholar
Fogel, J. (2021). Judicial decision-making and civic education. Judicature, 105(2), 2128. Scholar
Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., et al. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522559. Scholar
Forscher, P. S., Mitamura, C., Dix, E. L., Cox, W. T. L., & Devine, P. G. (2017). Breaking the values of judicial independence, Judicature, 105(2), 2128.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Herwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2011). Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, J. & Knowles, E. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice, Experimental Social Psychology 44(1), 164172. Scholar
Glynn, A. N. & Sen, M. (2015). Identifying judicial empathy: Does having daughters cause judges to rule for women’s issues? American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 3754.Google Scholar
Green, T. L. & Haiwara, M. (2020). The problem with implicit bias training. Scientific American, August 28. Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 14641480. Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 1741. Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinksi, J. R., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777830.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. R., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the bench: How judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review, 93(1), 143.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. R., & Wistrich, A. J. (2009). The “hidden judiciary”: An empirical examination of executive branch justice. Duke Law Journal, 58, 14771530.Google Scholar
Harris, A. P. (2019). Can racial diversity among judges affect sentencing outcomes? Working paper, Yale University. Scholar
Harris, A. P., & Sen, M. (2019). Bias and judging. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 241259. Scholar
Johnson, L. P. Q., Harner, M., & Cantone, J. A. (2012). Gender and securities law in the Supreme Court. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 33, 142.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases (pp. 4981). Cambridge University Press. Scholar
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O. & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little Brown, Spark.Google Scholar
Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., et al. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504519. Scholar
Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., et al. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59, 11241186.Google Scholar
Kirshenbaum, J. M. & Miller, M. K. (2020). Judges’ experiences with mitigating jurors’ implicit biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(5), 683693. Scholar
Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., et al. (2018). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. The American Psychologist, 74(5), 569586. Scholar
Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., et al. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 17651785. Scholar
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., et al. (2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 10011016. Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66: 799823. Scholar
Levinson, J. D., Bennett, M. W., & Hioki, K. (2017). Judging implicit bias: A national empirical study of judicial stereotypes. Florida Law Review, 69(1), 63, 6869.Google Scholar
Liptak, A. (2010, April 3). At 89, Stevens contemplates law, and how to leave it. The New York Times. Scholar
Maroney, T. A. (2011). Emotional regulation and judicial behavior. California Law Review, 99(6), 14851556.Google Scholar
Maroney, T. A. (2013). Judges and their emotions. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 64(1), 1124.Google Scholar
Maroney, T. A. (2020). What we talk about when we talk about judicial temperament. Boston College Law Review, 61(6), 20852153.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99120. Scholar
Nørretranders, T. (1999). The user illusion: Cutting consciousness down to size. Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Office of Workplace Relations, United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. (2019). Scholar
Onyeador, I. N., Hudson, S. T. J., & Lewis, N. A. (2021). Moving beyond implicit bias training: Policy insights for increasing organizational diversity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1): 1926. Scholar
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT Criterion Studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171173. Scholar
Paluck, E. L. & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339367. Scholar
Peer, E., & Gamliel, E. (2013). Heuristics and biases in judicial decisions. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 49(2), 114.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751783. Scholar
Project Implicit. (2021). Website. Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369381. Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2006). Inside the bankruptcy judge’s mind. Boston University Law Review, 86(5), 1227.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law Review, 90, 6.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does unconscious bias affect trial judges? Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 11951197.Google Scholar
Rees, L., Rothman, N. B., Lehavy, R., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2013). The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 360367. Scholar
Roberts, A. (2016). Reclaiming the importance of the defendant’s testimony: Prior conviction impeachment and the fight against implicit stereotyping. University of Chicago Law Review, 83(2), 835891.Google Scholar
Root, D., Faleschini, J., & Oyenubi, G. (2019, October 3). Building a more inclusive federal judiciary. Scholar
Schmader, T., Dennehy, T. C., & Baron, A. S. (2022). Why antibias interventions (need not) fail. Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(5), 13811403. Scholar
Simon, D. (1998). Psychological model of judicial decision making. Rutgers Law Journal, 30(1), 1142.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. B. (2020). Pleading conditions of the mind: Rule 9(b) rightly understood. Cardozo Law Review, 41, 10151056.Google Scholar
Staats, C., Capatosto, K., Tenney, L., & Mamo, S. (2017). State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.; Scholar
Steffensmeier, D. & Britt, C. (2001). Judge’s race and judicial decision making: Do black judges sentence differently? Social Science Quarterly, 82(4): 749765. Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 531542. Scholar
Swensen, D. L. P., Bibelhausen, J. D., Buchanan, B., Shaheed, D., & Yetter, K. (2020). Stress and resiliency in the US judiciary. Journal of the Professional Lawyer, 165. Scholar
Thornburg, E. (2019). (Un)Conscious judging. Washington and Lee University Law Review, 76(4), 15671665.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 11241131. Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). “I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 207223. Scholar
Vitriol, J. A. & Moskowitz, G. B. (2021). Reducing defensive responding to implicit bias feedback: On the role of perceived moral threat and efficacy to change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96(8), 116. Scholar
Vuletich, H. A. & Payne, B. J. (2019). Stability and change in implicit bias. Psychological Science, 30, 854862. Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 12511345.Google Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2017). Implicit bias sin judicial decision making: How it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. In Redfield, S. (Ed.), Enhancing justice: reducing bias (pp. 87–130). American Bar Association, Judicial Division.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, I. M. (2000). Isolation in the judicial career. Court Review [online], Winter, 406. Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats