English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Resumen La formacion de juicios y la toma de decisiones judicia­les deberian estar sustentadas en razonamientos formales o estadisticos, y no en razonamientos sesgados de modo que no deberian contener razonamientos sesgados. Una fuente de sesgo profusamente estudiada en la literatura es el anclaje que implica un ahorro cognitivo al aceptar la hipotesis inicial sin confirmarla y rechazar informacion o hipotesis alternativas, aunque puedan resultar relevantes para el juicio o decision. Para conocer de la prevalencia y los efectos del anclaje en sentencias judiciales de casos de familia, seleccionamos al azar 811 sentencias en disputa por la guarda y custodia de la base de datos del CENDOJ. El anclaje se midio a traves de la demanda ini­cial en la disputa por la custodia (juzgado de familia) o en la decision del tribunal previo (apelaciones). Los re­sultados mostraron que el 70.2 % las decisiones estaban ancladas. Un analisis de contenido sistematico de las sentencias presto apoyo a la hipotesis de que el anclaje sirve a jueces y tribunales como herramienta para el aho­rro cognitivo (alrededor del 12 %). Ademas, las senten­cias ancladas contenian significativamente menos razo­namientos favorables a la custodia; menos informacion idiosincrasica, o sea, razonamientos propios del juez; y menos informacion contextual, esto es, menos prueba ba­sada en evidencia. Se discuten las implicaciones de los resultados para la formacion de juicios y toma de deci­siones judiciales, asi como las opciones de mitigar sus efectos. Abstract Judicial judgment and decision making should be sus­tained in formal or statistical reasoning, avoiding biased reasoning. Thus, judicial reasoning should not contain any bias. A profusely studied source of bias is anchorage implying a cognitive saving by accepting the initial hy­pothesis without confirming it and rejecting other infor­mation or alternative hypotheses though they may be rel­evant to the task at hand. As for knowing the prevalence and effects of anchored sentences in family cases’ judi­cial sentences, 811 Spanish custody dispute sentences were randomly selected from the CENDOJ data base. Anchorage was measured through initial claimant in child custody dispute (first instance court) or prior judi­cial decision-making (appeal court). The results stated that 70.2 % of the judicial sentences were anchored. A systematic content analysis of the sentences gave support to the hypothesis that anchorage provides judges and courts a skill to save cognitive activity (about 12 %). Moreover, anchored sentences contained significantly fewer reasoning favourable to custody; fewer idiosyn­cratic information i.e., own reasoning of the judge; and fewer contextual information i.e., less evidence-based. The implications for judicial judgment and decision are discussed, as well as the possibilities to control the an­chorage prevalence in judicial sentences.

Estudio de los efectos del anclaje en razonamientos judiciales en casos de disputa por la guarda y custodia