{"id":401045,"date":"2026-11-11T17:30:25","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T12:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=401045"},"modified":"2026-11-11T17:08:50","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T11:38:50","slug":"dubai-arbitration-week-2026-psychology-and-biases-in-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/11\/11\/dubai-arbitration-week-2026-psychology-and-biases-in-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Dubai Arbitration Week 2026: Experts on psychological biases, witness credibility and AI influence on arbitral decision-making"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Taking place from 9 to 13 November 2026, Dubai Arbitration Week 2026, organised by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), brings together members of the international arbitration community to deliberate on significant developments and emerging challenges in arbitration and dispute resolution. As part of the programme, the session titled “The Decision Taker’s Blind Spot: What Really Shapes a Decision?”<\/span> examined the psychological and cognitive factors that shape judicial and arbitral decision-making. The panellists explored how unconscious biases, individual perceptions and cultural influences can affect the assessment of evidence and witness credibility, as well as the role of advocacy in shaping a decision-maker’s understanding of a dispute. The discussion also considered whether artificial intelligence could help identify and mitigate psychological biases, while examining the risks of relying on technology in the decision-making process.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture from left to right: Dr Anamika Vajpeyi, Ms Sara Koleilat-Aranjo, Justice Arjan Sikri, Ms Erin Miller Rankin and Dr Rouven F Bodenheimer]<\/p>\n

The session was moderated by Dr Rouven F Bodenheimer<\/span>, Member of the DIAC Arbitration Court and Founding Partner of Bodenheimer. The panellists included Justice Arjan Sikri<\/span>, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Independent Arbitrator and Mediator, and Justice of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), Delhi; Ms Erin Miller Rankin<\/span>, Partner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Dubai; Ms Sara Koleilat-Aranjo<\/span>, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Dubai; and Dr Anamika Vajpeyi<\/span>, Clinical and Business Psychologist, Openminds.<\/p>\n

Understanding the psychology of decision-making<\/p>\n

Starting the discussion, Dr Rouven F Bodenheimer<\/span> highlighted that lawyers often consider themselves experts in several areas beyond law, including strategy, technology and human behaviour. He explained that the panel had deliberately brought in a psychologist to examine the aspects of decision-making that legal professionals might otherwise overlook.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[in picture: Dr Rouven F Bodenheimer]<\/p>\n

To illustrate the issue, he presented a hypothetical dispute involving two companies negotiating a multi-million supply contract. At their final meeting, the buyer’s CEO and the supplier’s managing director shook hands. The following morning, the supplier sent an email stating that it was a great meeting and that preparations for delivery would begin. The buyer responded positively. However, three weeks later, the buyer withdrew from the negotiations. While the supplier’s managing director maintained that the handshake had confirmed the deal, the buyer’s CEO testified that nothing had been agreed. Both witnesses appeared confident, articulate and sincere. The audience was asked to assess what had happened during the interaction, rather than determine whether a legally enforceable contract had been concluded.<\/p>\n

Taking the discussion forward, Dr Anamika Vajpeyi<\/span> explained that decision-making is essentially a cognitive process and that recent research has challenged several assumptions concerning human memory and perception. She highlighted that the manner in which a question is worded can influence decision-making, memory reconstruction and recall. She also referred to research indicating that the presentation of a focal object, such as a weapon or photograph, during courtroom proceedings could distract decision-makers. She explained that memory does not operate as an exact recording of events. The recollection of an incident is reconstructed through several cognitive processes and may be influenced by stereotypes, lived experiences, context, culture, age and gender. In the context of the hypothetical dispute, the difference in the parties’ interpretation of the handshake could also be attributed to cultural differences. While certain cultures attach considerable importance to a person’s word, others place greater emphasis on written documentation.<\/p>\n

Dr Vajpeyi further discussed the role of cognitive shortcuts in assessing witness testimony. She observed that the manner in which a witness is dressed, speaks or presents themselves may influence how seriously their evidence is received. A witness who appears confident may be perceived as more credible, while hesitation, nervousness or lack of eye contact may create an impression of unreliability. However, such impressions do not necessarily establish the accuracy of the testimony. She also explained that non-verbal communication must be understood in its cultural context. Behaviour considered appropriate in one culture may carry an entirely different meaning in another. Accordingly, arbitrators and counsel must be cautious before drawing conclusions about a witness solely from their body language or manner of presenting evidence.<\/p>\n

Another aspect highlighted by Dr Vajpeyi was the priming effect, whereby the first impression of a case may continue to influence the decision-maker throughout the proceedings. She explained that intuition can provide an initial understanding of a dispute, but relying excessively on it may distract from the actual evidence. She emphasised:<\/p>\n

“There’s only one caution, that we have to bear in mind, that intuition is a good guiding factor, but not a good deciding factor.”<\/p>\n

Explaining the influence of narrative on decision-making, Dr Vajpeyi referred to the principle of Gestalt psychology, under which the human brain tends to complete incomplete patterns and fill gaps in information. Applying this to the hypothetical dispute, she observed that the tribunal had only been presented with the handshake, the parties’ different interpretations and the subsequent withdrawal from the negotiations. In the absence of the complete factual background, the decision-maker’s mind could begin filling the gaps and constructing a narrative. She also highlighted the influence of personal experiences on decision-making. Referring to research concerning marital disputes, she explained that decision-makers who had undergone similar experiences in their own lives could be more sympathetic towards a particular party. However, a decision-maker was expected to remain objective rather than allow personal circumstances to influence the assessment. Turning to witness preparation, Dr Vajpeyi suggested that lawyers should obtain independent and open-ended accounts from witnesses before introducing case theories. Unnecessarily leading questions should be avoided, as witnesses may tend to agree with or appease an authority figure. She further emphasised the importance of recording how witness accounts were prepared, distinguishing independent recollection from subsequent confirmation, and assessing demeanour cautiously during hearings.<\/p>\n

Addressing the use of AI, she cautioned that the data underlying AI systems may contain inherent biases. She advised legal professionals to verify the tools being used, examine their error rates and maintain accountable human oversight. She concluded that expertise could improve judgment but could not eliminate the psychological factors influencing it.<\/p>\n

Exchange of provisional views by arbitral tribunals before the hearing<\/p>\n

Following Dr Vajpeyi’s presentation, Dr Bodenheimer introduced six propositions concerning the practical application of psychological research to arbitration. The panellists were invited to argue in favour of or against each proposition, while the remaining members offered their observations.<\/p>\n

The first proposition concerned whether members of an arbitral tribunal should exchange provisional views before the hearing.<\/p>\n

Supporting the proposition, Ms Erin Miller Rankin<\/span> observed that arbitration hearings take place within a compressed period and that an initial exchange of views could help tribunal members identify the issues in dispute and the elements of proof. She explained that such discussions could be particularly useful where the tribunal comprised members with different professional and cultural backgrounds, as they could compare their perspectives and identify inconsistencies at an early stage.<\/p>\n

Opposing the proposition, Ms Sara Koleilat-Aranjo<\/span> cautioned that exchanging provisional views could create confirmation bias and groupthink. Once members of a tribunal began to agree on a particular interpretation, they might find it difficult to reconsider their position after hearing the evidence. She therefore considered that preliminary discussions could expose the tribunal to the risk of prejudgment.<\/p>\n

Justice Arjan Sikri<\/span> distinguished between judicial practice in India and the approach followed in international commercial arbitration. Referring to his experience as a judge for 20 years, he explained that judges in India would ordinarily hear the parties before forming their views. However, he acknowledged that the practice of exchanging provisional views existed in international arbitration and before the SICC. He emphasised that tribunal members must remain open to changing their views throughout the proceedings. A particular fact or submission raised during the hearing could alter the entire understanding of a dispute. Accordingly, while preliminary discussions could be useful, arbitrators should continue to discuss the matter and raise questions during the hearing rather than become committed to an initial conclusion.<\/p>\n

Role of the presiding arbitrator in expressing a provisional conclusion<\/p>\n

The next proposition examined whether the presiding arbitrator should express a provisional conclusion last.<\/p>\n

Supporting this approach, Justice Sikri explained that the presiding arbitrator may possess a strong personality or considerable authority, which could influence the views of the other members, particularly those with less experience. If the presiding arbitrator expressed a conclusion first, the remaining members might be inclined to agree with that view rather than independently assess the matter. He observed:<\/p>\n

“…the chair may be a person of formidable personality and having such strong personality and because of his aura, the junior member may ultimately, when he hears that view, may try to agree to that.”<\/p>\n

Ms Rankin, however, argued that the presiding arbitrator should express an informed and structured view first. According to her, this would help identify the actual issues in dispute and provide direction to the other members, while also reducing the possibility of members becoming entrenched in their respective positions.<\/p>\n

Dr Vajpeyi observed that the authority and initial interpretation of the presiding arbitrator could influence the direction of the entire discussion. She explained that individuals often resort to cognitive shortcuts and may accept a conclusion expressed by an authoritative person without independently examining the underlying material.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture from left to right: Ms Sara Koleilat-Aranjo and Dr Anamika Vajpeyi]<\/p>\n

Ms Koleilat-Aranjo added that the influence of seniority could not be assessed in isolation. The presiding arbitrator was not necessarily the most experienced member of the tribunal, and factors such as age, gender and cultural background could also influence the dynamics between its members.<\/p>\n

Whether counsel should address the strongest version of the opposing case<\/p>\n

The third proposition concerned whether counsel should confront the strongest version of the opposing case even where the opposing party had failed to present it effectively.<\/p>\n

Supporting the proposition, Ms Koleilat-Aranjo emphasised that effective advocacy required counsel to anticipate and address the strongest possible counterarguments rather than merely respond to the arguments advanced by the opposing party. She explained that addressing potential weaknesses could provide the decision-maker with greater confidence that all relevant aspects of the dispute had been considered. She observed that an argument which survived meaningful scrutiny and addressed the possible blind spots in the case would ultimately be more persuasive.<\/p>\n

Justice Sikri disagreed, explaining that counsel was engaged to represent a particular party and was not required to present the case of the opposing side. He distinguished between questions of law and questions of fact, observing that lawyers may be expected to assist the court on legal issues, but there was no corresponding obligation to fill gaps in the other party’s factual presentation. Referring to his experience as a lawyer, he recalled instances where an argument that could have been raised against his client was not advanced by the opposing side. He maintained that counsel should perform their duty towards their client and leave the ultimate assessment to the judge or tribunal.<\/p>\n

An audience participant, a dispute lawyer based in Belgium, observed that the answer could depend on the procedural stage of the proceedings. She explained that counsel might choose to address an inadequately presented argument at a later stage, depending on the pleadings and the opportunity to respond. She therefore cautioned against treating the proposition as having a uniform answer in every case.<\/p>\n

Witness confidence and demeanour as indicators of accuracy<\/p>\n

The fourth proposition examined whether the confidence and persuasiveness with which a witness gives evidence reveal little about the accuracy of that evidence.<\/p>\n

Supporting the proposition, Ms Rankin observed that witnesses may genuinely believe in a version of events that is inaccurate. A person’s confidence in their recollection does not necessarily establish that the events occurred in the manner described. She also pointed out that individuals may remember events differently and may be convinced of something that did not actually happen.<\/p>\n

Ms Koleilat-Aranjo took a different position and emphasised that the demeanour of a witness should not be disregarded altogether. Referring to an experience during a hearing, she described how a witness became visibly uncomfortable when questioned about a contradiction between the written testimony and the oral evidence. She explained that the witness began turning red and moving nervously when confronted with the inconsistency. She also raised the possibility of using lie detectors or AI-based tools to assess witness testimony during hearings, while acknowledging that the accuracy and reliability of such methods would require separate consideration.<\/p>\n

Ms Rankin cautioned that eye contact and other non-verbal expressions could not be assessed uniformly across cultures. She explained that in certain cultures, including some Far Eastern cultures, avoiding eye contact could be a sign of respect or deference towards authority. She also recalled having to prepare witnesses to make eye contact because tribunal members might otherwise misinterpret their behaviour.<\/p>\n

Dr Vajpeyi reinforced the need to avoid assuming that all witnesses would behave in the same manner. She observed that an individual could maintain eye contact and display confident gestures while giving an account that was contrary to the truth. She therefore cautioned against treating particular behavioural patterns as universal indicators of credibility.<\/p>\n

The discussion also considered the difference between experienced professional witnesses and individuals appearing before an arbitral tribunal for the first time. Dr Bodenheimer referred to the possibility that forensic accountants and engineers who regularly appeared before tribunals might develop considerable experience in presenting their evidence. This raised the question of whether a witness’s familiarity with the hearing process and ability to perform confidently could influence the tribunal’s assessment of their credibility. The panellists agreed that the assessment of witness evidence required consideration of the factual circumstances, individual behaviour and cultural context, rather than reliance on confidence or isolated non-verbal cues.<\/p>\n

Impact of effective advocacy on the tribunal’s ability to discover the truth<\/p>\n

The fifth proposition examined whether better advocacy makes it harder for the tribunal to discover the truth.<\/p>\n

Justice Sikri supported the proposition and referred to an incident from his experience in Indian courts. He recalled a matter in which the judge appeared to agree with both opposing counsel during the same hearing. When one of the lawyers questioned how both parties could be right, the judge responded that both were right. Explaining the significance of the incident, Justice Sikri observed that skilled advocates could present facts, interpret evidence and apply legal principles in persuasive but conflicting ways. Even where both sides relied on the same evidence, the manner in which they presented and interpreted it could make it difficult for the judge to determine which position was correct.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[In picture from left to right: Justice Arjan Sikri and Ms Erin Miller Rankin]<\/p>\n

Ms Rankin disagreed with the proposition, maintaining that good advocacy should work with the truth rather than conceal it. She explained that effective counsel must acknowledge both favourable and unfavourable facts, place them in context and explain how the applicable law supports the conclusion sought by their client. She emphasised that good advocacy should not involve presenting an entirely different version of events or selectively relying on facts. Rather, it should assist the tribunal in understanding the evidence and arriving at a reasoned conclusion.<\/p>\n

The exchange highlighted the distinction between persuasive advocacy and an approach that obscures the factual position. While skilled presentation may make competing arguments appear equally convincing, the responsibility of the tribunal remains to evaluate the evidence and determine which account is supported by the record.<\/p>\n

AI-assisted witness assessment and the appearance of objectivity<\/p>\n

The final proposition concerned whether AI-assisted witness assessment could give hidden biases the appearance of objectivity.<\/p>\n

Supporting the use of AI as an assistive tool, Ms Koleilat-Aranjo observed that human memory could be unreliable and that recollections were often influenced by prior experiences and individual perceptions. She suggested that AI could help decision-makers examine witness accounts while accounting for factors such as cultural differences, emotional expression and individual communication styles. She discussed the possibility of AI-assisted witness statements, through which a witness could provide an account of events that could then be processed using an AI system. According to her, such tools could potentially reduce the influence of subjective impressions and assist decision-makers in evaluating the evidence.<\/p>\n

Justice Sikri, however, cautioned against relying on AI without considering the possibility of hallucinations and the influence of the questions put to the system. He explained that where an arbitrator or tribunal framed a question based on a particular assumption, AI could reproduce or reinforce that assumption in its response. He therefore considered that reliance on AI in its present form could be problematic.<\/p>\n

Ms Rankin similarly questioned the assumption that AI was objective. She explained that AI systems predict likely responses based on patterns in their underlying data and could consequently reproduce and magnify the biases already present in those datasets. She also referred to the limitations of using systems trained within a particular organisational environment, observing that their responses could reflect the prevailing patterns and assumptions of that environment.<\/p>\n

Dr Vajpeyi agreed that AI systems could carry inherent human biases because of the manner in which their training data had been processed. She cautioned that the polished and convincing manner in which AI presented information should not be mistaken for accuracy or objectivity. At the same time, she suggested that AI could be adapted to legal processes and trained to identify and filter certain biases, provided it remained an assistive mechanism rather than a decision-making authority.<\/p>\n

An audience participant further illustrated the need for verification by sharing an instance in which AI had generated arbitration rule clauses by combining provisions from the 2007 and 2022 editions. The example highlighted the importance of assessing and verifying AI-generated material before relying on it in legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

Suggestions to improve arbitral proceedings and decision-making<\/p>\n

Concluding the discussion, Dr Bodenheimer invited the panellists to identify one change they would make to arbitration proceedings to bring decision-makers closer to the truth and reduce the influence of psychological biases.<\/p>\n

Ms Koleilat-Aranjo emphasised that any changes must preserve a party’s right to present its case and have its day in court. At the same time, she advocated a more informed approach to decision-making, with greater emphasis on reducing the influence of emotion and subjective impressions. She referred to her experience with decision-making and analytics training, including the use of decision trees and boundary questions to assess probabilities and identify the influence of the person presenting information.<\/p>\n

Dr Vajpeyi identified the need for additional time and resources, observing that the challenges faced by the justice system were not limited to time constraints but also involved a shortage of resources. She emphasised that adequate time and institutional support were essential to ensuring that justice was served.<\/p>\n

Justice Sikri highlighted the need to recognise and minimise preconceived notions and inherent biases among judges. He observed that such biases could result in incorrect conclusions and an inaccurate assessment of evidence. Referring to his experience as a judge, he stated that he had also delivered lectures to judges on the subject.<\/p>\n

Ms Rankin suggested reconsidering the use of witness statements in their present form. She observed that witness statements were often drafted by lawyers and could contain polished language and legal expressions that did not necessarily reflect the witness’s actual account. She questioned whether such statements genuinely saved time, considering the time and expense involved in their preparation, and whether tribunals ultimately received the witness’s own version of events.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

The panel discussion at Dubai Arbitration Week 2026 examined the human and psychological factors that influence arbitral decision-making, from the reconstruction of memory and the assessment of witness credibility to the dynamics within tribunals and the growing use of AI. The panellists approached the propositions from different perspectives, highlighting the importance of independent assessment, cultural awareness and careful evaluation of evidence. The discussion also brought out the practical challenges faced by counsel and arbitrators in ensuring that their decisions are not influenced by preconceived notions, group dynamics or the persuasive presentation of evidence. While AI may assist in identifying certain biases, its use requires verification and accountable human oversight. The session underscored that expertise and experience alone cannot eliminate the psychology underlying human judgment. Greater awareness of cognitive biases, adequate time and resources, and an evidence-based approach remain essential to ensuring fair and informed decision-making in arbitration.<\/p>\n

SCC Times is the Official Information & Documentation Partner for Dubai Arbitration Week 2026. Read more about Dubai Arbitration Week 2026:<\/p>\n