Related Experiment Videos
Judge v. generative artificial intelligence v. hybrid: The public trusts and accepts human and hybrid more than
Marvin Walczok1, Friederike Funk1
1Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen.
Objective:
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) could transform judicial decision-making by assisting or replacing judges. Prior research indicates that laypeople trust and accept human judges more than algorithmic judges. However, little is known about public perceptions of hybrid decision-making-human judges with GenAI support-which will represent the most realistic scenario in future judiciaries worldwide.
Hypotheses:
Building on the organizational trust model, machine heuristic, and Capability-Personalization Framework, we investigated the effect of the type of decision-maker on perceived trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) of the decision-maker and acceptance of judgments. We hypothesized higher ability, benevolence, and acceptance and lower integrity for human and hybrid judicial decision-making than for GenAI. Additionally, we postulated lower ability and acceptance for GenAI for emotional than for technical crimes.
Method:
Across three preregistered online experiments with German adults (most identified as White) from convenience sampling and panel providers (PsyWeb, Prolific), we presented hypothetical crime cases, court proceedings, and judgments. We manipulated the type of decision-maker as between factor with four levels: (a) human judge, (b) hybrid with high human involvement, (c) hybrid with low human involvement, and (d) GenAI. Participants answered questionnaires assessing the decision-maker's trustworthiness and the acceptance of judgment.
Results:
Results from Experiment 1 (N₁ = 323) demonstrated decreases in ability, benevolence, integrity, and acceptance with decreasing human involvement. Experiments 2 (N₂ = 674) and 3 (N₃ = 772) demonstrated similar trustworthiness and acceptance ratings for human and hybrid conditions, which were significantly higher than ratings for GenAI. GenAI was perceived as less able for emotional than for technical crimes (d = 0.58).
Conclusions:
Findings provide mixed evidence on the perception of hybrid judicial decision-making but support preferences for human judges. Overall, they warn of losses in trustworthiness and acceptance if GenAI replaced instead of supported judges but highlight the potential of hybrid judicial decision-making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
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...
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null hypothesis and 'fail to...
Heuristics
People often rely on heuristics when faced with an overload of information, limited time, low importance of the decision, limited information, or when a heuristic readily comes to mind. For...
Inductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning