Suppressing myside bias in civil litigation.

IF 3.2 2区社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000584

Mihael A Jeklic

{"title":"Suppressing myside bias in civil litigation.","authors":"Mihael A Jeklic","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Myside bias-the tendency to evaluate and generate evidence as well as test hypotheses in a manner biased toward prior beliefs-causes disputants in litigation to harbor overconfident expectations of judicial awards and reduces odds of settlement. Two studies tested three interventions to suppress myside bias in civil litigation settings.Hypotheses: I predicted that the participants in the baseline conditions would exhibit myside bias in award estimates and argument ratings and that the interventions would attenuate it.Method: Two between-subjects experimental studies using students of law (n = 164, Mage = 24.21 years, 53% female; n = 181, Mage = 20.89 years, 61% female) compared the participants' award estimates and argument ratings in a simulated civil dispute. The interventions (a) manipulated the advocates to think they represented the opposing side during initial information processing (side-switch condition), (b) required the participants to generate and evaluate arguments for both sides (dialectical condition), and (c) affected the participants' motivations by threatening dismissal in case of estimation error (goal states condition).Results: Baseline groups in both studies displayed significant myside bias in award estimates (all ds ≥ 1.12) and argument ratings (all ds ≥ 1.29). In Study 1, the side-switch intervention eliminated bias in argument ratings (d = 0.73 and 0.72) but only reduced (d = 0.35) rather than eliminated bias in award estimates. In Study 2, the dialectical intervention reduced bias in argument ratings (d = 0.74 and 0.58) but did not eliminate it; it also failed to reduce bias in award estimates. The goal states intervention suppressed myside bias in both argument ratings (d = 0.76 and 0.82) and award estimates (d = 0.78).Conclusions: Myside bias in litigation settings is robust and difficult to suppress. Accountability interventions show potential as bias-attenuating strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 5-6","pages":"564-579"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000584","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Myside bias-the tendency to evaluate and generate evidence as well as test hypotheses in a manner biased toward prior beliefs-causes disputants in litigation to harbor overconfident expectations of judicial awards and reduces odds of settlement. Two studies tested three interventions to suppress myside bias in civil litigation settings.

Hypotheses: I predicted that the participants in the baseline conditions would exhibit myside bias in award estimates and argument ratings and that the interventions would attenuate it.

Method: Two between-subjects experimental studies using students of law (n = 164, Mage = 24.21 years, 53% female; n = 181, Mage = 20.89 years, 61% female) compared the participants' award estimates and argument ratings in a simulated civil dispute. The interventions (a) manipulated the advocates to think they represented the opposing side during initial information processing (side-switch condition), (b) required the participants to generate and evaluate arguments for both sides (dialectical condition), and (c) affected the participants' motivations by threatening dismissal in case of estimation error (goal states condition).

Results: Baseline groups in both studies displayed significant myside bias in award estimates (all ds ≥ 1.12) and argument ratings (all ds ≥ 1.29). In Study 1, the side-switch intervention eliminated bias in argument ratings (d = 0.73 and 0.72) but only reduced (d = 0.35) rather than eliminated bias in award estimates. In Study 2, the dialectical intervention reduced bias in argument ratings (d = 0.74 and 0.58) but did not eliminate it; it also failed to reduce bias in award estimates. The goal states intervention suppressed myside bias in both argument ratings (d = 0.76 and 0.82) and award estimates (d = 0.78).

Conclusions: Myside bias in litigation settings is robust and difficult to suppress. Accountability interventions show potential as bias-attenuating strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

在民事诉讼中压制自己的偏见。

目的：我的偏见——倾向于评估和产生证据，以及以偏向于先前信念的方式检验假设——导致诉讼中的争议者对司法裁决抱有过度自信的期望，并降低和解的几率。两项研究测试了三种干预措施，以抑制民事诉讼环境中的我方偏见。假设：我预测基线条件下的参与者会在奖励估计和争论评级方面表现出我的偏见，而干预会减弱它。方法：采用两组受试者间实验研究，选取法学专业学生164名，年龄24.21岁，女性53%；n = 181, Mage = 20.89, 61%为女性)比较了模拟民事纠纷中参与者对奖励的估计和争论的评分。干预措施(a)在初始信息处理过程中操纵提倡者认为他们代表了相反的一方（侧转条件），(b)要求参与者生成和评估双方的论点（辩证条件），(c)在估计错误的情况下通过威胁解雇来影响参与者的动机（目标状态条件）。结果：两项研究的基线组在奖励估计（所有ds≥1.12）和争论评分（所有ds≥1.29）中显示显著的myside偏倚。在研究1中，侧转干预消除了争论评分的偏倚（d = 0.73和0.72），但只是减少了（d = 0.35）而不是消除了奖励估计的偏倚。在研究2中，辩证干预减少了争论评分的偏倚（d = 0.74和0.58），但没有消除偏倚；它也没能减少奖金估算中的偏见。目标状态干预抑制了论点评分（d = 0.76和0.82）和奖励估计（d = 0.78）中的我方偏见。结论：诉讼环境中的我方偏见是强大的，难以抑制的。问责干预显示出作为减轻偏见策略的潜力。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Law and Human Behavior Multiple-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

8.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.