‘Guilty, no doubt’ : detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques

This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the eval...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Lidén, Moa [verfasserIn] Gräns, Minna [verfasserIn] Juslin, Peter [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Psychology, crime & law - Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994, 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:25 ; year:2019 ; number:3 ; pages:219-247

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790

Katalog-ID:	173644624X

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	173644624X
003	DE-627
005	20201023094221.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201023s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)173644624X
035			\|a (DE-599)KXP173644624X
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rda
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Lidén, Moa \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a ‘Guilty, no doubt’ \|b detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.
650		4	\|a Confirmation bias
650		4	\|a Debiasing
650		4	\|a Detention
650		4	\|a Guilt
650		4	\|a Judge
700	1		\|a Gräns, Minna \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Juslin, Peter \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Psychology, crime & law \|d Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 \|g 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 \|h Online-Ressource \|w (DE-627)341903574 \|w (DE-600)2070124-X \|w (DE-576)27234995X \|x 1477-2744 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:25 \|g year:2019 \|g number:3 \|g pages:219-247
856	4	0	\|u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 \|x Resolving-System \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_U
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2002
912			\|a ISIL_DE-21-110
912			\|a SYSFLAG_1
912			\|a GBV_KXP
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_184
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2007
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2026
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2470
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4246
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 25 \|j 2019 \|e 3 \|h 219-247
980			\|2 2002 \|1 01 \|x DE-21-110 \|b 3785069014 \|c 00 \|f --%%-- \|d --%%-- \|e --%%-- \|j n \|y l01 \|z 23-10-20

Indexfelder

author_variant	m l ml m g mg p j pj
matchkey_str	article:14772744:2019----::ulyo
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 doi (DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Lidén, Moa verfasserin aut ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation. Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge Gräns, Minna verfasserin aut Juslin, Peter verfasserin aut Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 Online-Ressource (DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X 1477-2744 nnns volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 Resolving-System Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2019 3 219-247 2002 01 DE-21-110 3785069014 00 --%%-- --%%-- --%%-- n l01 23-10-20
spelling	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 doi (DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Lidén, Moa verfasserin aut ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation. Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge Gräns, Minna verfasserin aut Juslin, Peter verfasserin aut Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 Online-Ressource (DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X 1477-2744 nnns volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 Resolving-System Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2019 3 219-247 2002 01 DE-21-110 3785069014 00 --%%-- --%%-- --%%-- n l01 23-10-20
allfields_unstemmed	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 doi (DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Lidén, Moa verfasserin aut ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation. Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge Gräns, Minna verfasserin aut Juslin, Peter verfasserin aut Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 Online-Ressource (DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X 1477-2744 nnns volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 Resolving-System Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2019 3 219-247 2002 01 DE-21-110 3785069014 00 --%%-- --%%-- --%%-- n l01 23-10-20
allfieldsGer	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 doi (DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Lidén, Moa verfasserin aut ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation. Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge Gräns, Minna verfasserin aut Juslin, Peter verfasserin aut Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 Online-Ressource (DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X 1477-2744 nnns volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 Resolving-System Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2019 3 219-247 2002 01 DE-21-110 3785069014 00 --%%-- --%%-- --%%-- n l01 23-10-20
allfieldsSound	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 doi (DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Lidén, Moa verfasserin aut ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation. Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge Gräns, Minna verfasserin aut Juslin, Peter verfasserin aut Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 Online-Ressource (DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X 1477-2744 nnns volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790 Resolving-System Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 25 2019 3 219-247 2002 01 DE-21-110 3785069014 00 --%%-- --%%-- --%%-- n l01 23-10-20
language	English
source	Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247
sourceStr	Enthalten in Psychology, crime & law 25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247 volume:25 year:2019 number:3 pages:219-247
format_phy_str_mv	Article
building	2002:0
institution	findex.gbv.de
selectbib_iln_str_mv	2002@01
topic_facet	Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Psychology, crime & law
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Lidén, Moa @@aut@@ Gräns, Minna @@aut@@ Juslin, Peter @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	341903574
id	173644624X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">173644624X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201023094221.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201023s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)173644624X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KXP173644624X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lidén, Moa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">‘Guilty, no doubt’</subfield><subfield code="b">detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Confirmation bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Debiasing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Detention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Guilt</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judge</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gräns, Minna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Juslin, Peter</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Psychology, crime & law</subfield><subfield code="d">Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)341903574</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2070124-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)27234995X</subfield><subfield code="x">1477-2744</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:219-247</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-21-110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_KXP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">219-247</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2002</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-21-110</subfield><subfield code="b">3785069014</subfield><subfield code="c">00</subfield><subfield code="f">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="d">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="e">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="j">n</subfield><subfield code="y">l01</subfield><subfield code="z">23-10-20</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
standort_str_mv	--%%--
standort_iln_str_mv	2002:--%%-- DE-21-110:--%%--
author	Lidén, Moa
spellingShingle	Lidén, Moa misc Confirmation bias misc Debiasing misc Detention misc Guilt misc Judge ‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
authorStr	Lidén, Moa
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)341903574
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	KXP SWB GVK
remote_str	true
last_changed_iln_str_mv	2002@23-10-20
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1477-2744
topic_title	‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques Confirmation bias Debiasing Detention Guilt Judge
topic	misc Confirmation bias misc Debiasing misc Detention misc Guilt misc Judge
topic_unstemmed	misc Confirmation bias misc Debiasing misc Detention misc Guilt misc Judge
topic_browse	misc Confirmation bias misc Debiasing misc Detention misc Guilt misc Judge
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
standort_txtP_mv	--%%--
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Psychology, crime & law
hierarchy_parent_id	341903574
signature	--%%--
signature_str_mv	--%%--
hierarchy_top_title	Psychology, crime & law
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)341903574 (DE-600)2070124-X (DE-576)27234995X
title	‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
ctrlnum	(DE-627)173644624X (DE-599)KXP173644624X
title_full	‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
author_sort	Lidén, Moa
journal	Psychology, crime & law
journalStr	Psychology, crime & law
callnumber-first-code	-
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	219
author_browse	Lidén, Moa Gräns, Minna Juslin, Peter
selectkey	2002:l
container_volume	25
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Lidén, Moa
title_sub	detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
doi_str_mv	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	‘guilty, no doubt’detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
title_auth	‘Guilty, no doubt’ detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques
abstract	This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.
abstractGer	This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.
abstract_unstemmed	This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ILN_2002 ISIL_DE-21-110 SYSFLAG_1 GBV_KXP GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	‘Guilty, no doubt’
url	http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790
ausleihindikator_str_mv	2002:-
remote_bool	true
author2	Gräns, Minna Juslin, Peter
author2Str	Gräns, Minna Juslin, Peter
ppnlink	341903574
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790
callnumber-a	--%%--
up_date	2024-07-04T19:01:44.888Z
_version_	1803676239677882368
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">173644624X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201023094221.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201023s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)173644624X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KXP173644624X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lidén, Moa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">‘Guilty, no doubt’</subfield><subfield code="b">detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This research examines whether judges’ pretrial detention decisions trigger confirmation bias in their guilt assessments. It also tests two strategies to mitigate confirmation bias: (1) to have different judges decide about detention and guilt and (2) to reduce cognitive load by structuring the evaluation of evidence. In Experiment 1, Swedish judges (N = 64) read 8 scenarios in which they either decided themselves about detention or were informed about a colleague's decision. Then, participants rated the defendant's trustworthiness, the strength of each piece of evidence, the total evidence and decided about guilt. In Experiment 2, Law students (N = 80) either first rated each piece of evidence separately and then the total evidence (structured evaluation) or only the total evidence (unstructured evaluation), and then decided about guilt. Overall, detained defendants were considered less trustworthy and when participants themselves detained, they rated the guilt consistent and total evidence as stronger and were more likely convict, compared to when a colleague had detained. The total evidence was considered stronger after unstructured than structured evaluations of the evidence but the evaluation mode did not influence guilt decisions. This suggests that changing decision maker holds greater debiasing potential than structuring evidence evaluation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Confirmation bias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Debiasing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Detention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Guilt</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Judge</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gräns, Minna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Juslin, Peter</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Psychology, crime & law</subfield><subfield code="d">Getzville, NY : HeinOnline, 1994</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2019), 3, Seite 219-247</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)341903574</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2070124-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)27234995X</subfield><subfield code="x">1477-2744</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:219-247</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511790</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ISIL_DE-21-110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_KXP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">219-247</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">2002</subfield><subfield code="1">01</subfield><subfield code="x">DE-21-110</subfield><subfield code="b">3785069014</subfield><subfield code="c">00</subfield><subfield code="f">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="d">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="e">--%%--</subfield><subfield code="j">n</subfield><subfield code="y">l01</subfield><subfield code="z">23-10-20</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4023542

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

‘Guilty, no doubt’ : detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?