판단과 의사결정 연구에서 사람들이 판단 대상과 무관한 정보에 의해 영향을 받아, 예측 가능한 방향으로 편향이 일어날 수 있다. 이런 편향은 법적 판단에서도 나타난다는 연구도 많다. 그 중 하나는 피고인의 성격증거에 의해 유도된 편향이다. 본 연구에서는 성격증거로 편향을 유도한 다음, 판단자의 사고를 촉진하는 활동을 통해 편향을 감소시키는 방안을 모색하였다. 실험 1에서는 대학생 121명을 대상으로 하여 토론, 반사실적 사고와 토론, 그리고 반사실적 사고와 동료평가를 한 경우로 나누어 어떤 방법이 피고인의 성격증거로 유도된 편향을 줄이는데 효과가 있는지를 알아보았다. 연구결과 탈편향 활동을 한 집단은 통제 집단보다 유의미하게 편향이 줄어들었지만, 세 가지 다른 탈편향 활동을 한 집단들 간에는 감소량에서 차이가 없었다. 동일한 설계와 절차로 일반인 125명을 대상으로 실시한 실험 2에서는, 대학생 집단과는 달리, 반사실적사고와 토론을 병행한 집단에서만 유의미하게 편향이 줄어들었다. 종합 논의에서는 대학생과 일반인 간에 왜 이런 차이가 나타났는지에 대한 탐색과 연구의 한계점, 그리고 향후 연구방향에 대해 다루었다. 본 연구는 탈편향 전략이 피고인의 성격증거로 인해 발생할 수 있는 오판을 축소시킬 수 있음을 확인하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.
Judgment and decision-making studies have shown that people are easily influenced and biased by information irrelevant to the object of judgment. There is a great deal of research that indicates that bias exists in the legal judgment scene. One of them is a bias induced by defendants’ character evidence. This study examined whether cognitive activities such as discussion, counterfactual thinking, and peer assessment could reduce the bias induced by the character evidece. In Experiment 1, 121 college students were asked to give the percentage they believed the defendant to be guilty. There was no cognitive activity for the control group. There were three different cognitive activities for the experimental group: discussion, counterfactual thinking and discussion, and counterfactual thinking and peer assessment. Results showed reduction in bias for all the experimental groups, and there was no difference between them. In Experiment 2, there were 125 participants from general population for the same procedure as in Experiment 1. Results showed reduction in bias only for the counterfactual thinking and discussion group. In general discussion, we speculated the implication of the results and the reason for the difference between the two experiments.
김대성(2007). 영국에서의 형사배심재판사건의 축소화. 형사정책연구, 12, 109-133.
고민조, 박주용(2014). 베이지안 망을 이용한 법적 논증 분석. 서울대학교 법학, 55(1), 573-616.
고민조와 박주용(2019). 피고인의 성격증거가 사실인정에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 법, 10(3), 215-235.
송오섭(2019), 국민참여재판 활성화를 위한 토론회 자료집.
이광수(2008), 국민참여재판제도의 도입과 문제점. 인권과정의, 379, 59-73.
Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1-2), 53-79.
Daftary‐Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 133-154.
El-Shinnawy, M., & Vinze, A. S. (1997). Technology, culture and persuasiveness: a study of choice-shifts in group settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47(3), 473-496.
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court-a hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 705-722.
Ernst, B., & Steinhauser, M. (2015). Effects of invalid feedback on learning and feedback- related brain activity in decision-making. Brain and cognition, 99, 78-86.
Glöckner, A & Engel, C.(2012). Role Induced Bias in Court: An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 272–284.
Glöckner, A., & Engel, C. (2013). Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence- Based Reasoning. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 230-252.
Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff’s requests and plaintiff’s identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23(4), 445-470.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Decision making under stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp.69–87). New York: NY: The Free Press.
Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. Mis Quarterly, 14, 313-321.
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(2), 153-162.
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2006). Time is money—Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61(3), 375-392.
Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, (pp. 316–337). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Leighton, J. P. (2006). Teaching and assessing deductive reasoning skills. The Journal of experimental education, 74(2), 107-136.
London, K., & Nunez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 932-939.
Nunez, N., Dahl, M. J., Tang, C. M., & Jensen, B. L. (2007). Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extralegal factors matter. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(1), 21-39.
Park, J. (2017). ClassPrep: A peer review system for class preparation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48. 511-523.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (1996). When time is money: Decision behavior under opportunity-cost time pressure. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 66(2), 131-152.
Perry, T. S. (1992). Electronic mail-E-mail at work. Spectrum, IEEE, 29(10), 24-28.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), 655-669.
Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 43(1), 1-28.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(6), 1467-1478.
Sutter, M., Kocher, M., & Strauß, S. (2003). Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game. Economics Letters,81(3), 341-347.
Svenson, O., Edland, A., & Slovic, P. (1990). Choices and judgments of incompletely described decision alternatives under time pressure. Acta Psychologica, 75(2), 153-169.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” The Journal of Business 59(4), part 2, S251-S278.
Valacich, J. S., Jessup, L. M., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (1992). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1(3), 219-241.
Weisberg, H. (2010). Bias and Causation: Models and Judgment for Valid Comparisons. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
