Accountability in legal decision-making

References

• Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The ‘elasticity’ of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1245–1259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleiren, C. P. M. (2008). Het monopolie op de strafrechtelijke waarheidsvinding [The monopoly on truth-finding in criminal law. Strafblad, 3, 272–285.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. (2015). When judges have reasons not to give reasons: Comparative law approach. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72, 483–572.
   Google Scholar
• Crombag, H. F. M. (2017). Invloeden op rechterlijke beslissingen [Influences on judicial decisons]. In P. J. van Koppen, J. W. de Keijser, R. Horselenberg, & M. Jelicic (Eds.), Routes van het recht: Over de rechtspsychologie [Routes of the law: About legal psychology] (pp. 385–397). Boom Juridisch.
   Google Scholar
• Crombag, H. F. M., van Koppen, P. J., & Wagenaar, W. A. (2006). Dubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs [Dubious cases: The psychology of evidence in criminal law]. Olympus.
   Google Scholar
• De Keijser, J. W. (2017). Als de waarheid eraan moet geloven: Alledaagse bedreigingen voor waarheidsvinding in het strafprocess [When the truth is taken down: Everyday threats for truth-finding in criminal law procedure]. Boom Juridisch.
   Google Scholar
• Dreissen, W. H. B. (2007). Bewijsmotivering in strafzaken [Reasoned decisions in criminal law cases]. Boom Juridisch.
   Google Scholar
• Eerland, A., & Rassin, E. (2012). Biased evaluation of incriminating and exonerating (non)evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.493889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Court of Human Rights. (2019). Guide on article 6 of the European convention on human rights: Right to a fair trial (criminal limb). Retrieved from: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
   Google Scholar
• Findley, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). Multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 291–398.
   Google Scholar
• Gommer, H. (2007). Onbewuste denkprocessen maken motivering tot noodzaak [Subconcious thoughtprocesses necessitate reasoned decisions]. Trema, 4, 127–134.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
   Google Scholar
• Kahnemann, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. S., Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches to judgment and decision making: The impact of accountability on cognitive bias. In S. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (Cambridge Series on Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 431–457). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609978.015
   Google Scholar
• Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
   Google Scholar
• Mevis, P. A. M. (2019). Modernisering van het strafprocesrecht op z’n Duits [Modernisation of criminal procedural law in the German way]. Delikt & Delinkwent, 7, 40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, J., & Schlenker, B. R. (1999). Accountability for consequential decisions: Justifying ethical judgments to audiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1067–1081. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. (2018). Reducing tunnel vision with a pen-and-paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassin, E., Eerland, A., & Kuijpers, I. (2010). Let’s find the evidence: An analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reijntjes, J. M., & Reijnjes-Wendenburg, C. (2018). De Bewijsconstructie [The evidence construction]. In Handboek Strafzaken 34: Bewijs [EPUB version]. Wolters Kluwer. Retrieved from: https://www.navigator.nl
   Google Scholar
• Simmelink, J. B. H. M. (2001). Bewijsrecht en bewijsmotivering [Evidence law and reasoned decisions]. In M. S. Groenhuijsen & G. Knigge (Ed.), Het onderzoek ter zitting (pp. 397–453). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(3), 416–446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90020-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tay, S. W., Ryan, P., & Ryan, C. A. (2016). Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 7(2), e97–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.36777
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tenney, E. R., Cleary, H. M., & Spellman, B. A. (2009). Unpacking the doubt in “beyond a reasonable doubt”: Plausible alternative stories increase not guilty verdicts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802659687
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3033716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3033683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Koppen, P. J., & Mackor, A. R. (2020). A scenario-approach to the Simonshaven case. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1132–1151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbaan, J. H. J. (2016). Straf(proces)recht begrepen [Criminal (procedural) law understood]. Boom Juridisch.
   Google Scholar