Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T16:39:43.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual Differences in Judicial Behavior: Personal Characteristics and Private Law Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Peter J. Van Koppen  and
Jan Ten Kate
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research suggests that differences in judicial decisions stem from differences in personal characteristics of the decision-maker. Dutch private law proceedings permit a research approach in which the judicial decision-making task is simulated by presenting written decisional problems to judges. Judges (N=114) made decisions on the same nine cases and completed questionnaires on role conceptions and personality.

Findings suggest that judicial decisions are only moderately influenced by the personal characteristics of the judges. The judges, however, differed considerably in their decisions. Neither the influence of personal characteristics of the judges nor the characteristics of the cases can explain to a substantial extent the differences in the decisions. It was concluded that judicial decisions stem from an interaction of personal and case characteristics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , 1984 , pp. 225 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by The Law and Society Association

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.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to acknowledge the extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this article by Willem K.B. Hofstee, Jan M. van Dunné, Wim B.G. Liebrand, June Starr, and Jim H. Olila. The manuscript benefited considerably from the substantive and editorial comments of Richard Lempert. This research was supported with a grant from the Dutch Department of Justice and by the hospitality of the Psychology Department of the University of Groningen.

References

ALLPORT, Gordon W. (1961) Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
ATKINS, Burton M. (1974) “Opinion Assignments on the United States Courts of Appeals: The Question of Issue Specialization,” 27 Western Political Quarterly 409.Google Scholar
ATKINS, Burton M., Lenore, ALPERT and Robert, ZILLER (1980) “Personality Theory and Judging: A Proposed Theory of Self-Esteem and Judicial Policy-Making,” 2 Law and Policy Quarterly 189.Google Scholar
BEM, Daryl J. and David C., FUNDER (1978) “Predicting More of the People More of the Time: Assessing the Personality of Situations,” 85 Psychological Review 485.Google Scholar
BREHM, Jack W. (1972) Responses to Loss of Freedom: A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.Google Scholar
EYSENCK, Hans J. (1970) The Structure of Human Personality. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1978) “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model,” 72 American Political Science Review 911.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1981a) “Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self Esteem on Judicial Decision Making,” 43 Journal of Politics 104.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1981b) “The Role Concept in Judicial Research,” 3 Law and Policy Quarterly 291.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1983) “From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory in the Study of Judicial Behavior,” 5 Political Behavior 7.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon (1975) “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited,” 69 American Political Science Review 491.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon (1979) “The Effect of Past Judicial Behavior on Subsequent Decision-Making,” 19 Jurimetrics 208.Google Scholar
HOWARD, J. Woodford Jr. (1981) Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LANGEMEIJER, G. E. (1967) “Probleemdenken tegenover Systeemdenken” [“Problemthinking versus Systemthinking”], 16 Ars Aequi 86.Google Scholar
LIEBRAND, Wim B.G. (1977) “Maslow's Hiërarchische Rangschikking van Fundamentele Behoeften” [“Maslow's Levels of Fundamental Needs”], 32 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie 67.Google Scholar
LIEBRAND, Wim B.G. (1978) Maslow Need Questionnaire. Handleiding [Maslow Need Questionnaire. Manual]. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan and Laurens, WALKER (1979) “Theory Testing, Theory Development, and Laboratory Research on Legal Issues,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 5.Google Scholar
MISCHEL, Walter (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
MISCHEL, Walter (1973) “Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality,” 80 Psychological Review 252.Google Scholar
MISCHEL, Walter (1977) “The Interaction of Person and Situation,” in Magnusson, D. and Endler, N.S. (eds.), Personality at the Crossroad: Current Issues in International Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MISCHEL, Walter, EBBESEN, Ebbe B. and Antonette R., ZEISS (1973) “Selective Attention to the Self: Situational and Dispositional Determinants,” 27 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 129.Google Scholar
MISCHEL, Walter and P., PEAKE (1981) “Failure of the Bem-Funder Technique in the Search for Consistency,” in Zanna, M.P., Herman, C.P. and Higgins, E.T. (eds.), Variability and Consistency of Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MONSON, Thomas C., HESLEY, John W. and Linda, CHERNICK (1982) “Specifying When Personality Traits Can and Cannot Predict Behavior: An Alternative to Abandoning the Attempt to Predict Single-Act Criteria,” 43 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 385.Google Scholar
NISBETT, Richard E. and Lee, ROSS (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
PRICE, Richard H. and Dennis L., BOUFFARD (1974) “Behavioral Appropriateness and Situational Constraint as Dimensions of Social Behavior,” 30 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 579.Google Scholar
ROHDE, David W. and Harold J., SPAETH (1976) Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
SCHOLTEN, Paul (1974) Mr C Asser's Handleiding voor de Beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht. Algemeen Deel [Mr. C. Asser's Manual for the Practicing of the Dutch Private Law. General Part], 3rd. Ed. Zwolle, Netherlands: Tjeenk Willink.Google Scholar
SCHMIDHAUSER, John R. (1979) Judges and Justices: The Federal Appellate Judiciary. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon A. (1965) The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946-1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon A. (1974) The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
TER HEIDE, J. (1967) “Iudex Viator,” 16 Ars Aequi 3.Google Scholar
UNGS, Thomas D. and Larry R., BAAS (1972) “Judicial Role Perceptions: A Q-Technique Study of Ohio Judges,” 6 Law & Society Review 343.Google Scholar
VAN DUNNÉ, J.M. (1974) Riskante Rechtsvinding [Risky Judicial Decision-Making]. Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
VAN KOPPEN, Peter J. and Jan TEN, KATE (1980) Onderzoek Rechtsvinding. Interim-Verslag [The Decision-Making Study. Interim Report]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Unpublished.Google Scholar
VINES, Kenneth N. (1969) “The Judicial Role in the American States: An Exploration,” in Grossman, J. and Tanenhaus, J. (eds.), Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
WINICK, Charles, GERVER, I. and Abraham, BLUMBERG (1961) “The Psychology of Judges,” in Toch, H. (ed.), Legal and Criminal Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar