Quasirational models of sentencing

The challenges of being imperfect: how do judges and prosecutors deal with sentencing disparity

Legal decision-making aspires to be objective, a principle regarded as foundational to justice, public trust, and the legitimacy of legal outcomes. However, this ideal is often challenged by the reality of human judgment, which is influenced by subjective factors such as emotions, biases, and varying cognitive strategies. This paper investigates the psychological challenges faced by legal professionals in the context of sentencing, drawing on data from studies involving judges and prosecutors in Slovenia. Through workshops, interviews, and focus groups, the research highlights substantial inconsistencies in sentencing practices, even for similar offences. These disparities reveal the limits of objectivity within the judicial process, prompting legal professionals to reflect on the systemic and individual factors driving variability. The analysis focuses on how judges and prosecutors react to these discrepancies, examining a range of emotional and psychological responses-including the rationalization of decisions, the pursuit of consistency through personal "sentencing codes," and reliance on collegial input to cope with the absence of formal guidelines. The analysis draws on concepts from cognitive dissonance theory, deliberate ignorance, emotional labour, and personality types to explore how professionals reconcile the ideal of objectivity with the imperfections of human judgment. It highlights the profound emotional toll that discrepancies in sentencing can take on decision-makers and how these emotional reactions influence their professional identity and approach to justice. By contextualising these findings within the sociology of emotions, this paper emphasises how the emotional realities of legal professionals shape their responses to perceived failures and impact their capacity to deliver justice. Ultimately, this study aims to foster a deeper understanding of the human aspects of judicial decision-making, underscoring the need for systemic reforms to mitigate disparities, provide support, and promote consistency in sentencing practices.

Qualified fitness trainers practice scientifically based judgement in prescribing exercise programs

Fitness trainers are widely in demand by both commercial fitness centres and individual people. They serve members in one-to-one personal training (PT) or group training (GX) in commercial fitness centres. However, the services provided by fitness trainers have not been consistent across the industry. This service inconsistency has led to an increased doubt about professionalism in conducting safe and correct exercise for the public. No studies have evaluated how fitness trainers make decisions when they curate exercise programs for members. This research utilized a qualitative semi-structured interview method to collect data from 16 fitness trainers in Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Inverview data was verbatim transcribed and analyzed using a theory-driven analysis. The study investigated fitness training professional decision-making processes when they design and precribe fitness execise programming to clients. Using Cognitive Continuum Theory (CCT) as a lens to explore the decision-making processes revealed a dichotomy of decision-making processes for curating personal training and group training. Feedback mechanism in the implementation of personal training was proven to be more personalized than group training. There are four themes in decision-making processed discovered to be impreative characteristics for fitness trainers. The application of CCT allowed further understanding of the implementation of exercise programs for PT and GX training when fitness trainers modified exercise programs.

The Judge as a Procedural Decision-Maker

Abstract. Despite the abundance of studies exposing heuristic and biased thinking in judicial decision-making, the influence of this empirical work in court is limited. In this commentary, we address this paradox and argue that the disconnect between empirical work and practice stems from the limited knowledge and consideration of procedural rules. These shortcomings increase the skepticism of legal scholars and practitioners of this research and give an excuse for dismissing the findings, deeming them inapplicable in court. We suggest that the only way forward is by diversifying our research methods and by building a culture of collaboration, fostering research partnerships between legal scholars and (legal) decision-making researchers. This approach aims to bridge the gap between legal and social sciences and to promote the impact of empirical studies of the legal system on current legal practice.

Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making

Kenneth R. Hammond (1917–2015) made several major contributions to the science of human judgment and decision making. As a student of Egon Brunswik, he kept Brunswik’s legacy alive – advancing his theory of probabilistic functionalism and championing his method of representative design. Hammond pioneered the use of Brunswik’s lens model as a framework for studying how individuals use information from the task environment to make clinical judgments, which was the precursor to much ‘policy capturing’ and ‘judgment analysis’ research. Hammond introduced the lens model equation to the study of judgment processes, and used this to measure the utility of different forms of feedback in multiple-cue probability learning. He extended the scope of analysis to contexts in which individuals interact with one another – introducing the interpersonal learning and interpersonal conflict paradigms. Hammond developed social judgment theory which provided a comprehensive quantitative approach for describing and improving judgment processes. He proposed cognitive continuum theory which states that quasi-rationality is an important middle-ground between intuition and analysis and that cognitive performance is dictated by the match between task properties and mode of cognition. Throughout his career, Hammond moved easily from basic laboratory work to applied settings, where he resolved policy disputes, and in doing so, he pointed to the dichotomy between theories of correspondence and coherence. In this paper, we present Hammond’s legacy to a new generation of judgment and decision making scholars.