Having to explain a decision has often been found to have a positive effect on the quality of a decision. We aimed to determine whether different accountability requirements for judges (i.e., having to justify their decision or having to explicate their decision) affect evidence use. Those requirements were compared to instructions based on the falsification principle and a control condition. Participants (N = 173) decided on the defendant’s guilt in a murder case vignette and explained their decision according to the instructions. The explication and falsification (but not the justification) instructions increased the use of exonerating evidence. There was no significant difference between the groups in guilt perception. The use of exonerating evidence was a significant positive predictor of acquittal rates. The implications for the different forms of instructions in practice are positive, but suggest a difference between the evidence considered and the evidence used to account for the decision.

人们经常发现，必须解释一个决定对决定的质量有积极的影响。我们旨在确定对法官的不同问责要求（即，必须证明他们的决定是正当的或必须解释他们的决定）是否会影响证据的使用。这些要求与基于伪造原理和控制条件的指令进行了比较。参与者 (N = 173) 在谋杀案小插曲中决定被告有罪，并根据说明解释他们的决定。解释和伪造（但不是证明）说明增加了无罪证据的使用。两组之间的内疚感没有显着差异。无罪证据的使用是无罪开释率的显着积极预测因素。