Sitting in Judgment: The Working Lives of Judges

Product Information

Turned herself in after Here Lies the Abyss. Asked to be judged for her crime of murder, (abetting in a blood sacrifice). Carney, D.R.; Cuddy, A.J.C.; Yap, A.J. Review and Summary of Research on the Embodied Effects of Expansive (vs. Contractive) Nonverbal Displays. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 26, 657–663. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [ PubMed][ Green Version] The Inquisitor will preside over these events like they would a judgment, but they are technically not judgments.

Bartholow, B.D.; Sestir, M.A.; Davis, E.B. Correlates and Consequences of Exposure to Video Game Violence: Hostile Personality, Empathy, and Aggressive Behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 31, 1573–1586. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] [ PubMed] Porter, S.; ten Brinke, L.M.; Wallace, B. Secrets and Lies: Involuntary Leakage in Deceptive Facial Expressions as a Function of Emotional Intensity. J. Nonverbal. Behav. 2012, 36, 23–37. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Zloteanu, M. Reconsidering facial expressions and deception detection. In Handbook of Facial Expression of Emotion; Freitas-Magalhaes, A., Borod, J., Eds.; FEELab Science Books & Leya: Porto, Portugal, 2020; Volume 3, pp. 238–284. ISBN 978-84-10-74697-8. [ Google Scholar] Vrij, A. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, 2nd ed.; Wiley Series in the Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-0-470-51624-9. [ Google Scholar] Price, T.F.; Harmon-Jones, E. The Effect of Embodied Emotive States on Cognitive Categorization. Emotion 2010, 10, 934–938. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef][ Green Version]

That was tantamount to giving a blank cheque to external advisors who were sitting in judgement on their own case. Davis, M.H. Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44, 113–126. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] A repeated-measures ANCOVA was conducted on Posture (Open or Closed) and Stakes (High and Low) while controlling for individual differences in empathy. A marginal main effect of stakes was observed ( F(1, 29) = 4.04, p = 0.053, η P 2 = 0.119) suggesting that the High-Stakes videos ( M = 0.61, SD = 0.16) were easier to classify than the Low-stakes videos ( M = 0.51, SD = 0.21). While judges in the Open posture ( M = 0.59, SD = 0.15) had higher accuracy than judges in the Closed posture ( M = 0.55, SD = 0.11), the difference was not statistically significant ( F< 1, p = 0.335). The Stakes X Posture interaction, while also in the predicted direction—the difference between the Open and Closed posture on accuracy being more pronounced for the High-Stakes videos ( M diff = 5.15%) than the Low-Stakes videos ( M diff = 3.60%)—was not statistically significant ( F< 1, p = 0.948). Empathy was not found to affect the results ( Fs < 1, p = 0.644). Jordan, S.; Brimbal, L.; Wallace, D.B.; Kassin, S.M.; Hartwig, M.; Street, C.N.H. A Test of the Micro-Expressions Training Tool: Does It Improve Lie Detection? J. Investig. Psychol. Offender Profiling 2019, 16, 222–235. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] Thirty-two students (6 males, 26 females; M Age = 19.88, SD = 1.98) were recruited using the university’s online subject pool in return for course credit. A sensitivity analysis for an interaction between Posture (2), Stakes (2), and Veracity (2), given the sample size, estimated that an effect size of Cohen’s f = 0.26 (medium-to-large) can be detected with 95% power and an alpha criterion of 0.05. None of the participants had any uncorrected visual impairments.

Donaldson, W. Measuring Recognition Memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1992, 121, 275–277. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef]

sit in judgment of (someone or something)

Bond, C.F.; DePaulo, B.M. Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 10, 214–234. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] A MANOVA was considered for analyzing the eye gazing data, however, a preliminary inspection revealed that several dependent measures were either correlated too strongly ( rs > 0.9; multicollinearity) or not at all ( rs < 0.2), and several assumptions for this analysis were violated (i.e., homogeneity of covariance, Box’s M, ps < 0.001; multivariate normality, Royston’s Test, ps < 0.001). An inspection of the skewness and kurtosis, in addition to Q–Q plots and histograms, indicated that the assumption of normality of variance was violated for several AOIs. Therefore, the appropriate dependent variables were transformed to obtain a normal distribution of data and analyzed using between-subjects t-tests. Anderson, C.; Berdahl, J.L. The Experience of Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 1362. [ Google Scholar] [ CrossRef] It cannot be left to the judgement of the persons involved, since they could request the inclusion of material which might favour them to the detriment of others.