Assessing judges' use and awareness of cognitive heuristic decision-making

Heuristics, characterized as concise cognitive shortcuts rooted in intuitive reasoning, are both capable of facilitating swift judgments and cognitive efficiency, but also introducing cognitive biases during decision-making. The judicial domain, renowned for its demanding decision-making processes, is an interesting field for studying heuristics. In this study, we developed a novel Judicial Heuristics Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ) and administered it to a sample of 52 judges (20 males, M_age = 45.50, SD = 8.10), with active duty in various courts across Greece. We also evaluated their analytical System 2 thinking skills using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). This research pursued three objectives: (a) to explore the psychometric properties of the J-HAQ; (b) to investigate the correlation between judges' perceived use of heuristics/metacognitive awareness and their objective performance on reflective thinking; (c) to assess the correlation of self-reported usage of different heuristics and explore the influence of judges' demographics (educational level, gender, age, and years of experience) in the utilization of the reported heuristics in decision-making. Findings from a Principal Component Analysis on J-HAQ scores revealed four distinct factors (Availability, Confirmation Bias, Representativeness, and Anchoring) demonstrating sufficient reliability. We also report a significant correlation between CRT scores and reported use of the anchoring heuristic (ρ = 0.29, p = 0.04). Finally, we discovered two clusters defined by different awareness of the use of various heuristics, as well as significant association of educational level with this usage. Despite the limitations of a relatively small sample size, these findings reveal a dynamic for further interesting results from research in this domain.