Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
27 - Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter will examine complex decisions relevant to family law. Decisions shaped by bias can lead to outcomes that place certain people and groups at an unfair disadvantage while placing others at an unjustified advantage. Implicit bias can have significant implications for outcomes in the legal system, including in family court. Although decision-makers might view themselves as free of bias, decades of research indicates that this is simply not the case. Though it is not possible to completely remove bias from decision-making, awareness can partially mitigate the harm of unconscious bias. In particular, the chapter will address family law decisions and decision-making bias in various domains, including bias in (1) credibility determinations, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation and gender identity, (4) socioeconomic status, (5) intimate partner violence, and (6) substance use. The chapter will consider both psychological research and legal principles and identify areas where additional research needs to be conducted. Future research and/or policy implications will be discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 412 - 424Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Agnew-Brune, C., Moracco, K. E., Person, C. J., & Bowling, J. M. (2017). Domestic violence protective orders: A qualitative examination of judges’ decision-making processes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(13), 1921–1942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515590126.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Barry, C. L., McGinty, E. E., Pescosolido, B. A., & Goldman, H. H. (2014). Stigma, discrimination, treatment effectiveness, and policy: Public views about drug addiction and mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 65(10), 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400140.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, J. A. (1993). A wipe of the hands, a lick of the lips: The validity of demeanor evidence in assessing witness credibility. Nebraska Law Review, 72(4), 1157–1164.Google Scholar
Brennen, T., & Magnussen, S. (2020). Research on non-verbal signs of lies and deceit: A blind alley. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613410.Google Scholar
Brower, T. (2017). What judges need to know: Schemas, implicit bias, and empirical research on LGBT parenting and demographics. DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law, 7(1), 19–44.Google Scholar
Budd, J. C. (2010). Pledge your body for your bread: Welfare, drug testing, and the inferior fourth amendment. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19(3), 751–772.Google Scholar
Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35(4), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185415.Google Scholar
Charlow, A. (1986). Awarding custody: The best interests of the child and other fictions. Yale Law & Policy Review, 5(2), 267–290.Google Scholar
Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Battista, F., Guaragno, S., & Ribatti, R. M. (2019). Accuracy, confidence, and experiential criteria for lie detection through a videotaped interview. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748.Google Scholar
DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11(4), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262.Google Scholar
Elek, J. K. (2021). The evolving science on implicit bias: An updated resource for the state court community. National Center for State Courts (NCSC), 1–45. https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/accessfair/id/911.Google Scholar
Engel, C., & Glöckner, A. (2013). Role‐induced bias in court: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, D., & Goodman, L. A. (2018). Discounting women: Doubting domestic violence survivors’ credibility and dismissing their experiences. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 167, 399–461.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (2016). Consideration of genetic connections in child custody disputes between same-sex parents: Fair or foul. Missouri Law Review, 81(2), 331.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. D., Whitestone, E., Jackson, L. A., & Gatto, L. (1995). Justice is still not colorblind: Differential racial effects of exposure to inadmissible evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219003.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.Google Scholar
King, B. R., & Black, K. N. (1999). College students’ perceptual stigmatization of the children of lesbian mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69(2), 220–227.Google Scholar
Klein, L. (2010). Report on the survey of judges on the impact of the economic downturn on representation in the courts. ABA Coalition for Justice.Google Scholar
Kroeper, K. M., Quintanilla, V. D., Frisby, M., et al. (2020). Underestimating the unrepresented: Cognitive biases disadvantage pro se litigants in family law cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000229.Google Scholar
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001.Google Scholar
Lewandowska, K., Wachowicz, B., Marek, T., Oginska, H., & Fafrowicz, M. (2018). Would you say “yes” in the evening? Time-of-day effect on response bias in four types of working memory recognition tasks. Chronobiology International, 35(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2017.1386666.Google Scholar
Lipari, R. N., & Van Horn, S. L. (2017). Children living with parents who have a substance use disorder. The CBHSQ report. https://permanent.fdlp.gov/gpo133856/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK464590/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK464590.pdf.Google Scholar
Maldonado, S. (2017). Bias in the family: Race, ethnicity, and culture in custody disputes. Family Court Review, 55(2), 213–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12274.Google Scholar
Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 208, § 31 (n.d.).Google Scholar
McLeod, A. C., Crawford, I., & Zechmeister, J. (1999). Heterosexual undergraduates’ attitudes toward gay fathers and their children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n01_03.Google Scholar
Moore, T. (2021). Suggestions to improve outcomes for male victims of domestic abuse: A review of the literature. SN Social Sciences 1(10), 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00263-x.Google Scholar
Neitz, M. B. (2013). Socioeconomic bias in the judiciary. Cleveland State Law Review, 61(1), 137–165.Google Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 661 (2015).Google Scholar
Patterson, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Lesbian and gay parents and their children. National Council on Family Relations.Google Scholar
Payne, B. K. (2006). Weapon bias: Split-second decisions and unintended stereotyping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00454.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington v. Pennington, 711 Utah.P.2d 254 (1985).Google Scholar
Pope, J. C., & Silva-Risso, J. (2014). The psychological effect of weather on car purchases. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1(44), 377–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju033.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. & Wistrich, A. J. (2021). Benevolent sexism in judges. San Diego Law Review, 58, 101–140.Google Scholar
Reyes, R. (2011). The fading Free Exercise Clause. The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19(3), 773.Google Scholar
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2020) The Year in Hate and Extremism. 2020. Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 1–64. www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/yih_2020-21_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Stepanikova, I. (2012). Racial-ethnic biases, time pressure, and medical decisions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 53(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512445807.Google Scholar
Subcommittee on Judicial Guidelines of the Supreme Judicial Court Steering Committee on Self-Represented Litigants (n.d.). Judicial guidelines for civil hearings involving self-represented litigants (with commentary). www.Mass.gov.https://www.mass.gov/guides/judicial-guidelines-for-civil-hearings-involving-self-represented-litigants-with-commentary.Google Scholar
Tenuta, C. M. (2011). Can you really be a good role model to your child if you can’t braid her hair? The unconstitutionality of factoring gender and sexuality into custody determinations. City of University New York Law Review 14(2), 351–392.Google Scholar
Torres, E. E. (2002). Power, politics, and pleasure: Class differences and the law. Rutgers Law Review, 54(4), 853.Google Scholar
Villicana, A. J., Garcia, D. M., & Biernat, M. (2017). Gender and parenting: Effects of parenting failures on evaluations of mothers and fathers. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215615683.Google Scholar
Wald, A. (1997). A pedagogy of unlearning. In Kumar, A. (Ed.), Class issues: Pedagogy, cultural studies, and the public sphere (pp. 125–147). New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616686966.Google Scholar