Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39457794›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Behavioral Biases and Judicial Decision-Making in Brazil.

Benjamin Miranda Tabak, Liziane Angelotti Meira, Ana Clarissa Masuko Dos Santos Araujo, Aline Guiotti Garcia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Benjamin Miranda TabakGetulio Vargas Foundation, School of Public Policy and Government (FGV/EPPG), Brasilia 70830-020, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7935-3188
Liziane Angelotti MeiraGetulio Vargas Foundation, School of Public Policy and Government (FGV/EPPG), Brasilia 70830-020, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8402-8590
Ana Clarissa Masuko Dos Santos AraujoGetulio Vargas Foundation, School of Public Policy and Government (FGV/EPPG), Brasilia 70830-020, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7841-1684
Aline Guiotti GarciaGetulio Vargas Foundation, School of Public Policy and Government (FGV/EPPG), Brasilia 70830-020, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0001-6628-4187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We identify and present Brazil's most common behavioral and heuristic biases in judicial decision-making. Through bibliographic and specific cases, we notice the occurrence of the representativeness heuristic, availability heuristic, anchoring heuristic (anchoring effect), confirmation bias, and affect heuristic bias in Brazilian judicial decisions. We also present the current state of Brazilian legislation and its amendments that aim at impartiality in the production, the assessment of evidence, and the judge's conviction. Finally, we present the suggestions and initiatives that aim to mitigate biases and heuristics in judicial decision-making in Brazil, especially with awareness techniques, the replacement of judges by algorithms, and the review of judicial decisions by collegiate bodies.

Indexed as

behavioral economicsbehavioral insightscognitive biasesdecision-makingexperimental economicsimpartialityjudicial biasesnarrative reviewnudges

Identifiers

PMID39457794
PMCPMC11504676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.