نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه حقوق، واحد دشتستان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، برازجان، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Constitutional interpretation in public law systems constitutes the central arena for generating legal meaning and delineating the boundaries of governmental power, and interpreters are expected to adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and accuracy. However, contemporary research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that mental biases are structurally embedded even in specialized decision making and can subtly redirect the trajectory of legal reasoning. This study examines how cognitive biases disrupt the mechanisms of inference and the evaluation of evidence in constitutional interpretation and what consequences they produce for interpretive neutrality and accuracy. The research hypothesis posits that biases such as confirmation, availability, anchoring, and framing—by generating unconscious presuppositions—reinforce prior beliefs, diminish argumentative coherence, and weaken impartial assessment of competing constitutional principles. Employing an analytical–critical methodology, and drawing on interdisciplinary literature in cognitive psychology, constitutional interpretive theory, and case based interpretive analysis, the study explicates the mechanisms through which such biases exert influence. Findings indicate that cognitive biases undermine accuracy and neutrality through three primary pathways: selective data uptake, asymmetric weighting of principles, and schema driven interpretation. The study concludes that improving the quality of constitutional interpretation requires institutional and methodological reforms—such as increasing argumentative transparency, cross evaluation, managing cognitive presuppositions, and incorporating methodological constraints into the interpretive process—reforms that can strengthen public trust and enhance the legitimacy of constitutional adjudication.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)