Please wait a minute...
   2012, Vol. 20 Issue (5) : 726-734     DOI:
研究前沿 |
“Irrationality” in Justice Judgment: Processing Mechanisms, Main Forms and Influencing Factors
HU Jin-Sheng;YE Chun;LI Xu;GAO Ting-Ting
(Department of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China)
Download: PDF(199 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Research of “irrational” justice judgment profits from insights of dual-process theory of social cognition, literatures in uncertainty management and moral psychology. Individual’s justice judgment process may incorporate two distinctive cognitive systems differ in structure and evolution. 6 main forms of irrationality are discerned: substitutability process, primacy effects, extreme judgment, compensation bias, innocent victim blaming and moral mandate effect. Apart from situational factors like uncertainty and threatening situation, individual differences in moral identity, belief in just world and emotional state also have great impact on different forms of irrationality. In conclusion, the existing body of knowledge about irrational justice judgment are from many different fields of study. An integrated theoretical explanation and combined influence of factors at different levels are called for in the future, including its evolutionary origin, neural bases, and how it interacts with rational processes. The third party perspective and social reality approach are proposed as the direction of the future research.
Keywords justice judgment      irrationality      just world belief      dual processing      moral conviction     
Corresponding Authors: HU Jin-Sheng   
Issue Date: 15 May 2012
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
HU Jin-Sheng
YE Chun
GAO Ting-Ting
Cite this article:   
HU Jin-Sheng,YE Chun,LI Xu, et al. “Irrationality” in Justice Judgment: Processing Mechanisms, Main Forms and Influencing Factors[J]. , 2012, 20(5): 726-734.
URL:     OR
[1] LIU Chenghao; XU Fuming; WANG Wei; LI Yan; SHI Yanwei. Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(6): 967-978.
[2] SHEN Wang-Bing;LIU Chang. Critical Review on Psychological Studies on Moral Hypocrisy[J]. , 2012, 20(5): 745-756.
[3] LI Xu;HU Jin-Sheng. Alarm System of the Mental Neural Circuit: A New Perspective on Social Justice’s Study[J]. , 2010, 18(07): 1175-1181.
[4] Wang Ruiming, Mo Lei, Yan Xiumei. Technique Models and New Views of Studies of Text Reading[J]. , 2006, 14(03): 346-353.
[5] Song Shengzun,Fu Xiaolan. Theoretical Models and Research Methods of Criminal Decision-Making[J]. , 2005, 13(01): 107-118.
Full text



Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech