ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The debiasing paradox: cognitive biases in judicial adjudication of valuation adjustment mechanisms across Chinese and American courts.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Judicial adjudication of share repurchase clauses in Chinese valuation adjustment mechanisms (VAMs) exhibits marked typological divergence. The Ninth Meeting Minutes, issued in November 2019, sought to unify adjudicatory standards; however, disagreement has persisted. Existing scholarship accounts for this divergence through doctrinal analysis, leaving systematic cognitive distortions in judicial reasoning unexplored. Objective: This study advances a "debiasing paradox" thesis-that a judicial policy instrument designed to harmonize standards may, through a "normative anchor" mechanism, introduce new systematic cognitive biases. Treating anchoring as the core bias and framing effect and availability heuristic as downstream accompaniments, it examines how all three manifest in Chinese and American VAM adjudication and tests a hierarchical transmission model. Methods: Judicial reasoning sections from 217 Chinese VAM rulings (China Judgements Online) and 63 American earn-out rulings (Westlaw) underwent double-blind process coding (Cohen's Results: The VAM anchoring rate (47.7%) significantly exceeded that of private lending (26.2%), χ Conclusion: The findings provide preliminary archival evidence consistent with the Minutes having produced indirect biasing effects through the hierarchical transmission of a normative anchor-triggering framing downstream and reinforcing availability indirectly-pointing to a debiasing paradox inherent in institutional tools for reducing adjudicatory divergence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.