Abstract

This article provides a new explanation of the judicial decision-making process using the cognitive dissonance theory. It shows how the process of interpreting and applying the law is affected by the natural human need for consistency between what a person knows, believes, and does. Different authors suggest that judges' decisions are influenced by various factors, including law, personal morality, or rational self-interest. The article argues that none of these visions fully describe the judicial decision-making process and proposes a new approach based on the cognitive dissonance theory. Law, personal morality, and rational self-interest are cognitive elements that influence judicial decisions altogether. However, they are often in conflict and cause cognitive dissonance. Judges lean toward the decision that causes the cognitive dissonance that is the easiest to reduce, considering the cognitive elements’ resistance to change. In the process of interpretation, judges strive to reduce the cognitive dissonance that occurs due to their decisions. The reduction of cognitive dissonance is presented in this article as a “happy ending” of the judicial decision-making process.