The aim of the article is to examine the interaction between law and psychology, with particular emphasis on the main cognitive biases that influence judicial decision-making. The article provides a systematic analysis of the most common cognitive biases encountered in judicial practice, while also discussing the external and internal factors that contribute to the emergence and manifestation of these biases. Furthermore, the article reviews Lithuanian and foreign legal practice in this field and presents reasoned proposals for measures aimed at reducing the impact of cognitive biases on the judicial decision-making process.
BLANCO, Fernando (2017). Cognitive Bias. Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior [interaktyvus]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1244-1.
CARDOZO, Benjamin (1921). The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
EDWARDS, Charles P. ir kt. (2018). Judges and Stress: An Examination of Outcomes Predicted by the Model of Judicial Stress, Bolch Judicial Institute Duke Law School, 102(3), [interaktyvus]. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/an-examination-of-outcomes-predicted-by-the-model-of-judicial-stress/.
ENGLISCH, Brite (2006). Blind or Biased? Justitia’s Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations. LAW & POLICY, 28(4), 497-514 [intetaktyvus]. https://www.hf.uni-koeln.de/data/dppsenglich/File/PDFSStudien/LawPol28.pdf
GUSTAVO, Baros (2010). Herbert A. Simon and the concept of rationality: Boundaries and procedures. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 3(30), 455-472.
KAHNEMAN, Daniel ir TVERSKY, Amos (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
KIRBY, Michael (1995). Judicial stress. Australian Bar Review, 13, 101-115 [interaktyvus]. https://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/resources/judicial-stress-unmentionable-topic.
LIMANTĖ, Agnė; ŠUKYTĖ, Monika ir GAUBIENĖ, Neringa (2025). Dirbtinis intelektas teismuose: teorija, praktika ir teisinis reguliavimas. Monografija. Vilnius: LSMC Teisės institutas.
MILLER, Monica; MCDERMOTT, Christine; EDWARDS, Charles ir kt. (2022). The Relationship between Workplace Incivility and Well-Being in Administrative Court Judges. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 50(3), 416-426 [interaktyvus]. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/50/3/416.full.pdf.
MUNIR, Bakht (2025). Hallucinations in Legal Practice: A Comparative Case Law Analysis, International Journal of Law, Ethics, and Technology, [interaktyvus]. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5265375.c
OLABOREDE, Adabola ir MEINTJES – VAN DER VALT, Lirieka (2021). Cognitive Bias Affecting Decision-Making in the Legal Process 41(4), 805-830 [interaktyvus]. https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v41i4.10489.
OGONJO A. , Florence (2021). AI in the Judicial System: Possible Uses and Ethical Considerations, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, [interaktyvus]. https://cipit.strathmore.edu/ai-in-the-judicial-system-possible-uses-and-ethical-considerations/.
PERR, Eyal ir GAMLIEL Eyal (2013). Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, (49), 114-118.
PRENTICE, Robert (2023). Supremely (over)confident. Ethics unwrapped, [interaktyvus].https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/supremely-overconfident.
RAFFIDEWA, Tom (2025). Common Cognitive Biases and Their Impact on Decision-Making. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 15(1), 1-2 [interaktyvus]. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/common-cognitive-biases-and-their-impact-on-decisionmaking.pdf.
TANG, Aaron (2023). Supreme Hubris: How Overconfidence Is Destroying the Court — and How We Can Fix It. Yale University Press.
URIEL SOCOL de la OSA, David ir REMOLINA, Nydia (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing - or misinforming - judicial decision-making through generative AI, Data & Policy, [interaktyvus]. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.