In this article, we argue that when forming justice judgments, unconscious thought can lead to more accurate justice judgments than both conscious thought and immediate judgment. In two experiments, participants formed justice judgments about complex job application procedures. Specifically, participants made comparative justice judgments (Experiment 1) or absolute justice judgments on rating scales (Experiment 2). In immediate judgment conditions, participants made a justice judgment immediately after reading the stimulus materials. In conscious thought conditions, participants consciously thought about their justice judgment for 3 minutes. In unconscious thought conditions, participants were distracted for 3 minutes and then reported thei...
Judicial intuition is misunderstood. Labeled as cognitive bias, it is held responsible for stereotyp...
We investigated two factors that determine accurate memory for justice-related information: Justice ...
Fact inferences made by the trial judge are the lynchpin of civil litigation. If inferences were a m...
In this article, we argue that when forming justice judgments, unconscious thought can lead to more ...
This paper focuses on how people process information obtained directly (through own observation) or ...
Research suggesting merits of deliberation under distraction mainly have assessed explicit judgments...
This article focuses on how people infer the justness of events they encounter. Earlier justice rese...
Extending previous work on the formation of justice judgments, it is argued in this thesis that proc...
Contains fulltext : 90584.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The unconsciou...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
This paper argues that when people try to sort out whether they are treated in just or unjust manner...
How individuals form justice perceptions has been a fundamental question in justice research. While ...
Judicial intuition is misunderstood. Labeled as cognitive bias, it is held responsible for stereotyp...
We investigated two factors that determine accurate memory for justice-related information: Justice ...
Fact inferences made by the trial judge are the lynchpin of civil litigation. If inferences were a m...
In this article, we argue that when forming justice judgments, unconscious thought can lead to more ...
This paper focuses on how people process information obtained directly (through own observation) or ...
Research suggesting merits of deliberation under distraction mainly have assessed explicit judgments...
This article focuses on how people infer the justness of events they encounter. Earlier justice rese...
Extending previous work on the formation of justice judgments, it is argued in this thesis that proc...
Contains fulltext : 90584.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The unconsciou...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
Using two randomized controlled courtroom experiments on actual litigants at court hearings, we exam...
This paper argues that when people try to sort out whether they are treated in just or unjust manner...
How individuals form justice perceptions has been a fundamental question in justice research. While ...
Judicial intuition is misunderstood. Labeled as cognitive bias, it is held responsible for stereotyp...
We investigated two factors that determine accurate memory for justice-related information: Justice ...
Fact inferences made by the trial judge are the lynchpin of civil litigation. If inferences were a m...