Preventive psychological preparation of judges for the implementation of artificial intelligence systems: prevention of automation bias in the context of the "Digital Court" concept in the Republic of Uzbekistan

Context and relevance. The global digitalization of justice actualizes the problem of psychological readiness of the judicial corps to work with artificial intelligence systems. Large-scale judicial and legal reforms in the Republic of Uzbekistan, initiated by His Excellency President Sh.M. Mirziyoyev since 2016, have reached a qualitatively new stage with the adoption of Presidential Decrees No. UP-140 and No. UP-141 dated August 21, 2025, which laid the legal foundation for the "Digital Court" concept and the creation of the Academy of Justice. Automation bias represents a critical risk to the objectivity of judicial decisions in the context of AI technology implementation. Objective. To develop a scientifically-based model of preventive psychological preparation of judges for working with AI systems within the framework of implementing the "Digital Court" concept in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Hypothesis. Preventive psychological preparation, integrated into the educational programs of the Academy of Justice, forms critical thinking when interacting with AI systems and reduces automation bias risks while maintaining judges' professional autonomy. Methods and materials. Comprehensive analysis of legal acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, systematic review of international research on automation bias in legal practice, development of a theoretical model of judges' psychological readiness factors for working with AI systems based on decision-making theories and professional identity. Results. Key psychological factors were identified: cognitive (critical thinking), motivational (professional autonomy), emotional (anxiety management). A three-stage preparation model was developed: awareness of automation bias risks, development of critical evaluation skills for AI recommendations, formation of sustainable interaction patterns. Integration mechanisms into Academy of Justice programs were proposed. Conclusions. A preventive approach to psychological preparation of judges is strategically significant for justice quality. Integration of automation bias prevention programs into Academy of Justice activities will ensure the formation of a competitive judicial corps ready for effective use of AI technologies while maintaining critical thinking and professional responsibility.

1. Afanasieva, I.V., Afanasyev, I.V., Pavlenko, A.A. (2024). Scientific-Biographical Method in Psychological and Legal Research: from Retrospective and Multivariate Analysis to Methodological Tools for Quality Assessment. Psychology and Law, 14(1), 197—213. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2024140113
2. Bulygina, V.G. (2025). Contemporary Challenges of Legal Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Interagency Collaboration. Psychology and Law, 15(1), 1—2. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2025150100
3. Gulyamov, S.S., Rodionov, A.A. (2024). Cyber Hygiene as an Effective Psychological Measure in the Prevention of Cyber Addictions. Psychology and Law, 14(2), 77—91. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2024140206
4. Rusakovskaya, O.A. (2024). "Problem Situations": Testing as a Forensic Psychiatric Research Method when Changing Civil Legal Status. Psychology and Law, 14(1), 152—167. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2024140110
5. Shipkova, K.M. (2025). Neuropshychological assessment instruments for social aggression in modern foreign studies. Psychology and Law, 15(1), 3—15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2025150101
6. Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775—779.https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8
7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
8. Bauer, K., Pfeuffer, N., Abdel-Karim, B., Hinz, O., Kosfeld, M. (2020). The Economic Consequences of Algorithmic Discrimination: Theory and Empirical Evidence. SAFE Working Paper,287. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3675313
9. Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies.New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company.
10. Buzova, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the judicial system: advantages and risks. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, 10(2), 57—73. https://doi.org/10.21684/2411-7897-2024-10-2-57-73
11. Dressel, J., Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4(1), Article https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
12. Epley, N., Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391—396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00372
13. Facione, N., Facione, P., Sanchez, C. (1994). Critical Thinking Disposition as a Measure of Competent Clinical Judgment: The Development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33, 345—350. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19941001-05
14. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive—developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906—911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
15. Green, B., Chen, Y. (2019). The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359152
16. Gulyamov, S., Rustambekov, I. (2023). Code of ethics for the responsible use of AI (chatbots) in science, education, and professional activities. Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.87
17. Gulyamov, S., Rustambekov, I., Narziev, O., Xudayberganov, A. (2021). Draft concept of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the field of development artificial intelligence for 2021—2030. Jurisprudence, 1(1), 106—121. https://doi.org/10.51788/tsul.jurisprudence.1.1./qugt2226
18. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19. Kayode, O. (2025). Algorithmic Bias and Justice: Analyzing the Ethical Limits of Machine Learning in High-Stakes Decision-Making. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393789201 (viewed: 26.09.2025).
20. Klayman, J., Ha, Y.W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211—228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
21. Kreiner, G.E., Sheep, M.L. (2009). Growing pains and gains: Framing identity dynamics as opportunities for identity growth. In: L.M. Roberts, J.E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation (pp. 23—46). Taylor & Francis.
22. Lee, J.D., See, K.A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50—80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
23. Lehr, D., Ohm, P. (2017). Playing with the data: What legal scholars should learn about machine learning. UC Davis Law Review, 51(2), 653—717.
24. Livermore, M.A., Rockmore, D.N. (Eds.). (2019). Law as Data: Computation, Text, and the Future of Legal Analysis. Santa Fe Institute Press.
25. Logg, J.M., Minson, J.A., Moore, D.A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90—103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
26. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397—422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
27. Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 899—906.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00276-4
28. Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375—403. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/dhdywf (viewed: 29.09.2025).
29. Mosier, K.L., Skitka, L.J. (1996). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other? In: R. Parasuraman, M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance(pp. 201—220). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Parasuraman, R., Manzey, D.H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(3), 381—410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
31. Reiling, D. (2020). Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), Article 8.https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343
32. Scherer, M. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Journal of International Arbitration, 36(5), 539—573. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2019028
33. Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L., Burdick, M. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(5), 991—1006. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252
34. Surden, H. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1305—1337.
35. van der Haar, I.M. (2007). Technological Neutrality: What Does it Entail? TILEC Discussion Paper, 2007-009. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.985260
36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425—478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
37. Watson, G., Glaser, E.M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal.The Psychological Corporation.
38. Wischmeyer, T. (2020). Artificial intelligence and transparency: Opening the black box. In: T. Wischmeyer, T. Rademacher (Eds.), Regulating Artificial Intelligence(pp. 75—101). Springer.