Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
Inequality threat increases laypeople's, but not judges', acceptance of algorithmic decision making in court
Jonas Ludwig1, Paul-Michael Heineck1, Marie-Theres Hess2
1Department of Psychology II-Social Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-University Wurzburg.
Objective:
Algorithmic decision making (ADM) takes on increasingly complex tasks in the criminal justice system. Whereas new developments in machine learning could help to improve the quality of judicial decisions, there are legal and ethical concerns that thwart the widespread use of algorithms. Against the backdrop of current efforts to promote the digitization of the German judicial system, this research investigates motivational factors (pragmatic motives, fairness concerns, and self-image-related considerations) that drive or impede the acceptance of ADM in court.
Hypotheses:
We tested two hypotheses: (1) Perceived threat of inequality in legal judgments increases ADM acceptance, and (2) experts (judges) are more skeptical toward technological innovation than novices (general population).
Method:
We conducted a preregistered experiment with 298 participants from the German general population and 267 judges at regional courts in Bavaria to study how inequality threat (vs. control) relates to ADM acceptance in court, usage intentions, and attitudes.
Results:
In partial support of the first prediction, inequality threat increased ADM acceptance, effect size d = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.47], and usage intentions (d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.00, 0.46]) of laypeople. Unexpectedly, however, this was not the case for experts. Moreover, ADM attitudes remained unaffected by the experimental manipulation in both groups. As predicted, judges held more negative attitudes toward ADM than the general population (d = -0.71, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.54]). Exploratory analysis suggested that generalized attitudes emerged as the strongest predictor of judges' intentions to use ADM in their own court proceedings.
Conclusions:
These findings elucidate the motivational forces that drive algorithm aversion and acceptance in a criminal justice context and inform the ongoing debate about perceptions of fairness in human-computer interaction. Implications for judicial praxis and the regulation of ADM in the German legal framework are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Trial and Error and Algorithm
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Stereotype Threat and Self-fulfilling Prophecies
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...

