LTStraipsnyje analizuojamas santykinis teisėjų intuityvaus ir racionalaus informacijos apdorojimo pasireiškimas sprendžiant tariamus baudžiamųjų bylų scenarijus, susijusius su plėšimo nusikaltimais. Gauti rezultatai interpretuojami kognityvios psichologijos kontekste, taip pat aptariamas jų sąlytis su pastarųjų dešimtmečių mokslinės produkcijos tendencijomis ir tolesnėmis perspektyvomis. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Intuityvus informacijos apdorojimas; Racionalus informacijos apdorojimas; Dvejopas informacijos apdorojimas; Teisėjų sprendimų priėmimas; Intuitive information processing; Rational information processing; Dual processing; Judicial decision making.
ENThe aim of the current study is to investigate the contributions of judges’ intuitive and rational information processing making decisions on criminal (robbery) cases. 98 judges working in various courts of Lithuania‘s general jurisdiction participated in this study. We asked participants to solve two vignettes. One vignette was designed to be compatible with intuitive information processing (i. e., anchor provided at the end of the vignette suggested a correct decision), while another counter-intuitive (i. e., anchor suggested incorrect decision). 51 judges were instructed to solve vignettes intuitively under a limit time (intuitive group), 47 judges – rationally with no time constraints (rational group). Results of the current study revealed that intuitive group decided on higher sentences (i.e. was closer to an anchor), compared to rational group. Additonally, we found that judges’ in rational group rational information processing contributed to 53.19%, and intuitive information processing – to 8,51% of all decision-making process. Moreover, judges’ in intuitive group rational information processing contributed to 35.29%, and intuitive information processing – to 15,68% of all decision-making process. Results are interpreted in the context of cognitive psychology. [From the publication]