Table 1
Attributed influence of assistants by judges via three different duties (N = 80), scale 1–5.
| Items | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sound boarding | ||||
| The judge and judicial assistant discuss the content of a case. | 2 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.68 |
| The judicial assistant participates in the discussion during the deliberation session. | 3 | 5 | 4.8 | 0.55 |
| The judicial assistant is the first person to be invited to share his/her views on a case in the deliberation session. | 1 | 5 | 2.9 | 1.22 |
| The decision made in the deliberation session is afterwards (partly) changed on the initiative of the judicial assistant. | 1 | 3 | 1.3 | 0.51 |
| Bench memo | ||||
| The judge prepares for a hearing by exclusively reading the bench memo prepared by the judicial assistant. | 1 | 5 | 1.2 | 0.67 |
| The judicial assistant gives advice about the outcome of a case. | 1 | 5 | 4.4 | 0.83 |
| Judgment drafting | ||||
| The judge adopts the facts and procedural information that the judicial assistant provides in the draft without modifications. | 1 | 5 | 2.6 | 1.10 |
| The judge adopts the entire draft judgment prepared by the judicial assistant without modifications. | 1 | 4 | 1.4 | 0.76 |
| The judicial assistant prepares a draft judgment without receiving instructions from the judge. | 1 | 4 | 1.4 | 0.70 |
Table 2
Influence attributed to an assistant in the latest concrete court case in which the respondent collaborated with a judicial assistant (N = 80).
| Categories | Frequency | Percentage | Cumulative percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | 1 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Very inconsiderable | 2 | 2.5 | 3.8 |
| Inconsiderable | 28 | 35.0 | 38.8 |
| Considerable | 48 | 60.0 | 98.8 |
| Very considerable | 1 | 1.3 | 100 |
| Total | 80 | 100 |
Table 3
Influence of the type of vignette on the judges’ decision to suspend the mayor’s decision to evict a family (Analysis of Co-Variance (ANCOVA), N = 63, confidence intervals given in brackets).
| Vignette | Mean* |
|---|---|
| Pro suspending eviction bench memo | 7.0 (6.1–7.9) |
| Neutral (no bench memo) | 5.3 (4.2–6.4) |
| Contra suspending eviction bench memo | 5.0 (4.1–6.0) |
| Partial Eta | 16.7%# |
[i] # p < 0.01.
* Controlled for risk-benefit perception, rule of law orientation and court.
Table 4
Pairwise comparisons of means adjusted for covariates (Sidak) (standard error between brackets).
| (I) Vignette | (J) Vignette | Mean difference (I–J) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pro suspending eviction memo | No memo | 1.7* | (0.7) |
| Contra suspending eviction memo | 2.0** | (0.6) | |
| No memo | Pro suspending eviction memo | –1.7* | (0.7) |
| Contra suspending eviction memo | 0.2 | (0.7) | |
| Contra suspending eviction memo | Pro suspending eviction memo | –2.0** | (0.6) |
| No memo | –0.2 | (0.7) | |
[i] * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.