I - Metatheory and Methodology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and MindA Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 15 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Alexy, R. (1978). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Amaya, Amalia. (2018). Coherence and Systematization in Law. In Bongiovanni, G., Postema, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Valentini, C. & Walton, D. (eds.) (2018), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 637–72.Google Scholar
Ariely, Dan. (2009). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2017). Constructivism in Metaethics. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/constructivism-metaethics/Google Scholar
Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. (1970). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. Burns, J. H. & Hart, H. L. A.. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. (1984). Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, & Gintis, Herbert. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Claessen, Jacques. (2019). Theories of Punishment. In Keiler, Johannes & Roef, David (eds.), Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 11–34.Google Scholar
Di Bello, M., & Verheij, B. (2018). Evidential Reasoning. In Bongiovanni, G., Postema, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Valentini, C., & Walton, D. (eds.) (2018), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 447–93.Google Scholar
Doris, John M., & the Moral Psychology Research Group. (2010). The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. (2006). The Optimal Complexity of Legal Rules. In Gigerenzer, G. & Engel, C. (eds.), Heuristics and the Law. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 141–57.Google Scholar
Fenton, Norman, Neil, Martin, & Berger, Daniel. (2016). Bayes and the Law. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application 3, 51–77.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun (ed.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of the Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S., & LeDoux, J. E. (1978). The Integrated Mind. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Heuristics. In Gigerenzer, G. & Engel, C. (eds.), Heuristics and the Law. Cambridge: MIT Press, p. 17–44.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral Intuition = Fast and Frugal Heuristics? In Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008a, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Oliver R., & Tucker, Micaela. (2010). Law and Cognitive Neuroscience. In Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossi, Davide, Meyer, John-Jules, & Dignum, Frank. (2008). The Many Faces of Counts-As: A Formal Analysis of Constitutive Rules. Journal of Applied Logic 6, 192–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2007.06.008Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2005). Law and Coherence. In Studies in Legal Logic. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 33–68.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2017). Tort Law. In Hage, Jaap, Waltermann, Antonia, & Akkermans, Bram (eds.), Introduction to Law, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, pp. 109–28.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap, Waltermann, Antonia, & Akkermans, Bram (eds.) (2017). Introduction to Law, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan, & Bjorklund, Fredrik. (2008). Social Intuitionists Answer Six Questions about Moral Psychology. In Sinnott-Armstrong 2008a, pp. 181–218.Google Scholar
Haji, Ishtiyaque. (2002). Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility. In Kane, 2002, pp. 202–28.Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert L. A. (2012). The Concept of Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1st ed. 1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, Carl. (2019). Causal Determinism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hume, David. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. & Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1st ed. 1738–40).Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. (2016). Moral Anti-Realism. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-anti-realism/Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert (ed.). (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. (1992). Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Translation of the first (1934) edition of the Reine Rechtslehre by Paulson, Bonnie Litschewsky and Paulson, Stanley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1st ed. 1962).Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. In Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackor, Anne Ruth. (2013). What Can Neurosciences Say About Responsibility? Taking the Distinction Between Theoretical and Practical Reason Seriously. In Vincent, Nicole A. (ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Morse, Stephen J. (2013). Introduction. In Morse, Stephen J. & Roskies, Adina L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. xv–xxiii.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84, 231–59.Google Scholar
Pardo, Michael S., & Patterson, Dennis. (2013) Minds. Brains and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. (2001). Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling Reasoning About Evidence in Legal Procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 119–28.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 163, 167–86.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S., Wistrich, A., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges? Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195–1246.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter. (2006). Humean Theory of Practical Rationality. In Copp, David (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 265–81.Google Scholar
Rosati, Connie S. (2016). Moral Motivation. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-motivation/Google Scholar
Roskies, Adina L. (2013). Brain Imaging Techniques. In Morse, Stephen J. & Roskies, Adina L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiter, Dick W. P. (1993). Institutional Legal Facts. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, Robert M. (2017). Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Schlosser, Markus. (2015). Agency. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/agency/Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.) (2008a). Moral Psychology, vol. 2, The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.) (2008b). Moral Psychology, vol. 3, The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. (2008). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, Willem A., Van Koppen, Peter J., & Crombag, Hans F. M. (1993). Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. Jay. (2020). Practical Reason. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/practical-reason/Google Scholar
Wilson, Eric Entrican, & Denis, Lara. (2018). Kant and Hume on Morality. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/kant-hume-morality/Google Scholar
Wilson, Timothy D. (2002). Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconsciousness. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Wróblewski, Jerzy. (1992). The Judicial Application of Law, eds. Bankowski, Zenon and MacCormick, Neil. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Zaluski, Wojciech. (2009). Evolutionary Theory and Legal Philosophy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Zaluski, Wojciech. (2013). Game Theory in Jurisprudence. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
References
Kant, I. (1923). Logik. In Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. Jäsche, B., vol. 9. Berlin: Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992). The Jäsche Logic. In Lectures on Logic, trans. and ed. J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1990). Why Is a Philosopher? In Putnam, H., Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rickert, H. (1921). Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis, 4th and 5th ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
References
Alces, P. (2018). The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Apperly, I., & Butterfill, S. (2009). Do Humans Have Two Systems to Track Beliefs and Belief-Like States? Psychological Review 116(4), 953–70.Google Scholar
Bayne, T., & Pacherie, E. (2015). Consciousness and Agency. In Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 211–30.Google Scholar
Bertea, S. (2015). A Foundation for the Conception of Law as Practical Reason. Law and Philosophy 34, 55–88.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (1981). Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78, 67–90.Google Scholar
Craver, C. (2007).Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahan-Katz, L. (2013). The Implications of Heuristics and Biases Research on Moral and Legal Responsibility: A Case Against the Reasonable Person Standard. In Vincent, N. (ed.), Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1978a). Intentional systems. In Dennett, D., Brainstorms. Montgomery, VT: Bradford, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1978b). Beliefs about Beliefs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, 568–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1996). Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Figdor, C. (2018). Pieces of Mind: The Proper Domain of Psychological Predicates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2005). Folk Psychology as a Model. Philosophers’ Imprint 5(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (1999). The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 359, 1775–85.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. (1976). The Social Function of Intellect. In Bateson, P. P. G. & Hinde, R. A. (eds.), Growing Points in Ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–17.Google Scholar
Izhikevich, E. (2007). Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. (2005). Theory of Mind and Moral Cognition: Exploring the Connections. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(8), 357–9.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. (2014). Free Will and the Scientific Vision. In Machery, E. & O’Neill, E. (eds.), Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 3(50), 249–58.Google Scholar
Malle, B. (2004). How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning and Social Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malle, B., & Nelson, S. (2003). Judging Mens Rea: The Tension between Folk Concepts and Legal Concepts of Intentionality. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21(5), 563–80.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (2010). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mollo, D. (2017). Content Pragmatism Defended. Topoi, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9504-6.Google Scholar
Morse, S. (2015). Criminal Law and Common Sense: An Essay on the Perils and Promise of Neuroscience. Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1609. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1609.Google Scholar
Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-Month-Old Infants Understand False Beliefs? Science 308(5719), 255–8.Google Scholar
Pardo, M., & Patterson, D. (2013). Minds, Brains and Law. The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, 515–26.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The Web of Belief. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1, 253–329.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1962). Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy 48, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. (1999). Three Conceptions of Rational Agency. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2(3), 217–42.Google Scholar
Wilkes, K. (1984). Pragmatics in Science and Theory in Common Sense. Inquiry 27(4), 339–61.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. (2002). Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconsciousness. Cambridge, MA and London: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Function of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children’s Understanding of Deception. Cognition 13, 103–28.Google Scholar
References
Bear, A., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality: Part Descriptive, Part Prescriptive. Cognition 167, 25–37.Google Scholar
Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment. Cognition 108(2), 353–80.Google Scholar
Donelson, R., & Hannikainen, I. (in press). Fuller and the Folk: The Inner Morality of Law Revisited. In Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earp, B., Latham, S. R. & Tobia, K. (in press). Personal Transformation and Advance Directives: An Experimental Bioethics Approach. American Journal of Bioethics.Google Scholar
Friedman, O., & Neary, K. (2008). First Possession Beyond the Law: Adults’ and Young Children’s Intuitions About Ownership. Tulsa Law Review 83, 679.Google Scholar
Greene, E. J., & Darley, J. M. (1998). Effects of Necessary, Sufficient, and Indirect Causation on Judgments of Criminal Liability. Law and Human Behavior 22(4), 429–51.Google Scholar
Grossmann, I., Eibach, R., Koyama, J., & Sahi, Q. (2020). Folk Standards of Sound Judgment: Rationality Versus Reasonableness. Science Advances 6.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Review 93, 1–44.Google Scholar
Hans, V. (1992). Jury Decision Making. In Kagehiro, Dorothy K. & Laufer, William S. (eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Law. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 56–76.Google Scholar
Jaeger, C. B., Levin, D. T., & Porter, E. (2017). Justice Is (Change) Blind: Applying Research on Visual Metacognition in Legal Settings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 23(2), 259–79.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D., Evans, D., et al. (2015). Ideology or Situation Sense: An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164, 349–439.Google Scholar
Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, . (2017). Mens Rea Ascription, Expertise and Outcome Effects: Professional Judges Surveyed. Cognition 169, 139–46.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language. Analysis 63, 190–94.Google Scholar
Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (in press). Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review.Google Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., Phillips, J., Gerstenberg, T. et al. (2015). Causal Superseding. Cognition 137, 196–209.Google Scholar
Lagnado, D. A., & Gerstenberg, T. (2017). Causation in Legal and Moral Reasoning. In Waldmann, M. R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 565–601.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. A. (2019). Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation. Indiana Law Journal 94, 957–1029.Google Scholar
Malle, B. F., & Nelson, S. E. (2003). Judging Mens Rea: The Tension Between Folk Concepts and Legal Concepts of Intentionality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 21(5), 563–80.Google Scholar
Miller, A. D., & Perry, R. (2012). The Reasonable Person. New York University Law Review 87, 323–92.Google Scholar
Mott, C. (2018). Statutes of Limitations and Personal Identity. 2 Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy 243.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2001). Informed Consent and Genetic Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32, 689–704.Google Scholar
Prosser, W. L. (1986). Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2008). Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges. Notre Dame Law Review 84, 1195–1246.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., Hoffman, M. B., Jones, O. D., et al. (2011). Sorting Guilty Minds. New York University Law Review 86, 1306–60.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2002). Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame. Brooklyn Law Review 68, 1003–29.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2009). Blame, Praise, and the Structure of Legal Rules. Brooklyn Law Review 75, 517–43.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M., & Darley, J. M. (2001). Causation, Contribution, and Legal Liability: An Empirical Study. Law and Contemporary Problems 64(4), 265–98.Google Scholar
Solan, L., Rosenblatt, T., & Osherson, D. (2008). False Consensus Bias in Contract Interpretation. Columbia Law Review 108, 203–29.Google Scholar
Sommers, R. (in press). Commonsense Consent. Yale Law Journal.Google Scholar
Sommers, R., & Bohns, V. K. (2018). The Voluntariness of Voluntary Consent: Consent Searches and the Psychology of Compliance. Yale Law Journal, 129, 2232–2324.Google Scholar
Sommers, R., & Furth-Matzkin, M. (2019). Consumer Psychology and the Problem of Fine Print Fraud. Stanford Law Review 72, 503–60.Google Scholar
Stern, S. (2017). R v. Jones (1703). In Handler, P., Mares, H. & Williams, I. (eds.), Landmark Cases in Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart, 59–79.Google Scholar
Struchiner, N., Hannikainen, I. R., & de Almeida, G. (in press). An Experimental Guide to Vehicles in the Park. Judgment and Decision Making.Google Scholar
Sytsma, J., Bluhm, R., Willemsen, P., & Reuter, K. (in press). Causal Attributions and Corpus Analysis. In Fisher, E. (ed.), Methodological Advances in Experimental Philosophy. London:Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P. (2018). How People Judge What Is Reasonable. Alabama Law Review 70, 293–360.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P., & Mikhail, J. (2021). Two Types of Empirical Textualism. Brooklyn Law Review.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P., Nielsen, A., & Stremitzer, A. (2021). When Does Physician Use of AI Increase Liability? The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. (1994). Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.Google Scholar
Vilares, I., Wesley, M., Ahn, W., et al. (2017). Predicting the Knowledge–Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 3222–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed