Psychological Models of Professional Decision Making

TLDR

Decision makers are expected to integrate all relevant information, yet often rely on heuristics that deviate from this ideal. The study tested two models for predicting judges’ bail decisions in two courts. The authors compared a simple heuristic model with a complex due‑process model by applying both to judge bail decisions in two courts. The heuristic model outperformed the due‑process model, revealing that judges often rely on prior police, prosecution, and bench decisions that are not linked to case characteristics, underscoring the need for models that capture such heuristic behavior.

Abstract

People are often expected to make decisions based on all of the relevant information, weighted and combined appropriately. Under many conditions, however, people use heuristic strategies that depart from this ideal. I tested the ability of two models to predict bail decisions made by judges in two courts. In both courts, a simple heuristic proved to be a better predictor of judicial decisions than a more complex model that instantiated the principles of due process. Specifically, judges were "passing the buck" because they relied on decisions made by the police, prosecution, and previous bench. Problematically, these earlier decisions were not significantly related to case characteristics. These findings have implications for the types of models researchers use to capture professional decision-making policies.