Explicit and implicit markers of fairness preeminence in criminal judges

Abstract

Achieving justice could be considered a complex social decision-making scenario. Despite the relevance of social decisions for legal contexts, these processes have still not been explored for individuals who work as criminal judges dispensing justice. To bridge the gap, we used a complex social decision-making task (Ultimatum game) and tracked a heart rate variability measurement: the square root of the mean squared differences of successive NN intervals (RMSSD) at their baseline (as an implicit measurement that tracks emotion regulation behavior) for criminal judges (n = 24) and a control group (n = 27). Our results revealed that, compared to controls, judges were slower and rejected a bigger proportion of unfair offers. Moreover, the rate of rejections and the reaction times were predicted by higher RMSSD scores for the judges. This study provides evidence about the impact of legal background and expertise in complex social decision-making. Our results contribute to understanding how expertise can shape criminal judges' social behaviors and pave the way for promising new research into the cognitive and physiological factors associated with social decision-making.

Figure 1

Timeline for the UG. The green box is for the proposer and the red box is for the participants’ role as responders. The trial started by looking at the fixation cross; then, during comparative condition (A), participants could see the proposer’s options before their final offer (surrounded by a yellow box). During individual condition (B), participants just could see the final offer. After, responders decided if they would accept and split points or decline and discard points. At the end of each round, the total points earned appear.

Figure 2

Panel (A) shows a group comparison of rejection of unfair offerings in comparative and individual rounds. Panel (B) exhibits a group comparison of reaction times in rejected trials between rounds. An Asterix reveals significant group comparisons (p < 0.05).

Figure 3

Linear regression models between HRV measurements (RMSSD) and the UG measurements, including the rate of rejections of unfair offers in the comparative rounds, are shown in Panel (A); and reaction times in rejected trials are shown in Panel (B). An Asterisk reveals significant group comparisons (p < 0.05).