Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-2c8nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T01:03:25.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Psychology and Jurisprudence across the Curriculum

from Part I - Foundations and Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2025

By
Barbara A. Spellman ,
Jennifer K. Robbennolt ,
Janice Nadler  and
Tess Wilkinson-Ryan
Edited by
Kevin Tobia
Kevin Tobia
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Psychology and law, by their nature, are deeply entwined. Both are about human behavior – understanding it, modifying it, regulating it. Psychology’s research engagement with legal topics enjoys a long history, but until recently has been largely limited to clinical assessment (e.g., capacity, insanity) and police and trial evidence and procedures (e.g., eyewitnesses, jury instructions). The traditional canon of “Psychology & Law” research gained prominence when DNA evidence revealed that many wrongful convictions involved problems foreseen by psychologists. Also, the emergence of “Behavioral Law & Economics” likely provided more legitimacy to law’s engagement with empirical psychology topics and methods, spurring “Law & Psychology” teaching and research in law schools. The expanded range of research can be found across the US law curriculum as illustrated in four main first-year courses – Criminal Law, Torts, Contracts, and Property – and two commonly taken or required courses – Evidence and Professional Responsibility. The current experimental jurisprudence boom has added to the topics and methods used in this research and amplifies the existing trend in which psychology engages more closely with the content and values of law.

Keywords

psychology & lawlaw & psychologyempirical legal studiesbehavioral law & economicsjurisprudencecriminal lawtortscontractspropertyevidence
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence , pp. 10 - 48
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2017–2018, Standard 303. Curriculum, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2017-2018ABAStandardsforApprovalofLawSchools/2017_2018_standards_chapter3.authcheckdam.pdf.Google Scholar
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347, 509–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alicke, M. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2011). Self-enhancement and self-protection in social judgment. In Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 174–191). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Alicke, M. D., Mandel, D. R., Hilton, D. J., Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2015). Causal conceptions in social explanation and moral evaluation: A historical tour. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 790–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alicke, M. D., & Weigel, S. H. (2021). The reasonable person standard: Psychological and legal perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Intentional harms are worse, even when they’re not. Psychological Science, 24, 1755–1762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonio, M. E. (2006). Arbitrariness and the death penalty: How the defendant’s appearance during trial influences capital jurors’ punishment decision. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.673CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ask, K., & Landström, S. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atuahene, B. (2014). We want what’s ours: Learning from South Africa’s land restitution program. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, I., & Schwartz, A. (2014). The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Review, 66, 545–610.Google Scholar
Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337–1343.Google Scholar
Bailis, D. S., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakos, Y., Marotta-Wurgler, F., & Trossen, D. R. (2014). Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard-form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandes, S. A. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 361–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandes, S. A. (2014). Remorse, demeanor, and the consequences of misinterpretation. Journal of Law, Religion and State, 3(2), 170–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/22124810-00302004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandes, S. A., & Salerno, J. M. (2014). Emotion, proof and prejudice: The cognitive science of gruesome photos and victim impact statements. Arizona State Law Journal, 46, 1003.Google Scholar
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaton, A., Cook, M., Kavanagh, M., & Herrington, C. (2000). The psychological impact of burglary. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008410830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellin, J. (2014). The case for eHearsay. Fordham Law Review, 83, 1317.Google Scholar
Ben-Shahar, O. & Schneider, C. (2011). The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 159, 647–749.Google Scholar
Binder, G., & Biondolillo, M. (2023). Re-tribute: Reconsidering the moral psychology of culpability and desert. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 56, 139.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, J. A. (2009). To be human: A psychological perspective on property law. Tulane Law Review, 83, 609.Google Scholar
Bollingmo, G. C., Wessel, E. O., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2008). Credibility of the emotional witness: A study of ratings by police investigators. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701368412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, W. J., Steiner, B. D., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in Black and White: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition symposium: Race crime and the constitution. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 171–275.Google Scholar
Bregant, J., Robbennolt, J. K., & Winship, V. (2021). Perceptions of settlement. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 27, 93.Google Scholar
Brown, T. R. (2021). The content of our character. Penn State Law Review, 126(1), 1–58.Google Scholar
Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).Google Scholar
Burch, E. C. (2019). Mass tort deals: Backroom bargaining in multidistrict litigation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burch, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2022). Perceptions of justice in multidistrict litigation: Voices from the crowd. Cornell Law Review, 107, 1835–1925.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caruso, E. M., Burns, Z. C., & Converse, B. A. (2016). Slow motion increases perceived intent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 9250–9255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamallas, M., & Wriggins, J. B. (2010). The measure of injury: Race, gender, and tort law. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-53.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1999). Advising clients to apologize. Southern California Law Review, 72, 1009–1069.Google Scholar
Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (2000). The impact that it has had is between people’s ears: Tort reform, mass culture, and plaintiffs’ lawyers. DePaul Law Review, 50, 453–496.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., & Huff, C. W. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of the intentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2014). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 114–126.Google ScholarPubMed
Duncan, M. G. (2002). So young and so untender: Remorseless children and the expectations of the law. Columbia Law Review, 102, 1469–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edkins, V. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2019). (Eds.). A system of pleas: Social science’s contribution to the real legal system. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edkins, V. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2004). The psychology of entrapment. In Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 215–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_10Google Scholar
Eigen, Z. J. (2012). When and why individuals obey contracts: Experimental evidence of consent, compliance, promise, and performance. The Journal of Legal Studies, 41(1), 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, M. (1995). The limits of cognition and the limits of contract. Stanford Law Review, 47, 211–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldred, T. (2016). Insights from psychology: Teaching behavioral legal ethics as a core element of professional psychology. Michigan State Law Review, 2016, 777–815.Google Scholar
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn077Google Scholar
Engel, D. M. (1984). The oven bird’s song: Insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law & Society Review, 18, 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Y., & Teichman, D. (2011). Are all contractual obligations created equal? Georgetown Law Journal, 100, 5–52.Google Scholar
Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furth-Matzkin, M., & Sommers, R. (2020). Consumer psychology and the problem of fine-print fraud. Stanford Law Review, 72, 503–560.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, B. L. (2020). Wrongful convictions. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, H., & Mu, N. (2023). How we understand others: A theory of how social perspective taking unfolds. Review of General Psychology, 27, 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231152595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Why the brain talks to itself: Sources of error in emotional prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, E., Tenney, E. R., Holland, C., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Counterfactuals, control, and causation: Why knowledgeable people get blamed more. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2008). The sting of intentional pain. Psychological Science, 19, 1260–1262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, B. J. (2015). The future of emotional harm. Fordham Law Review, 83, 2605–2653.Google Scholar
Guglielmo, S., & Malle, B. F. (2010). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1635–1647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02414.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P. (2014). What’s it worth? Jury damage awards as community judgments. William and Mary Law Review, 55, 935–969.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., Reed, K., Reyna, V. F., Garavito, D., & Helm, R. K. (2022). Guiding jurors’ damage award decisions: Experimental investigations of approaches based on theory and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28, 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2011). To dollars from sense: Qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., Nguyen, A. P., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). Short- and long-term effects of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(42), 11103–11108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701544114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, W. P. (2009). Arresting and convicting the innocent: The potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.864CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hensler, D. H. (2013). The socio-economics of mass torts: What we know, don’t know, and should know. In Arlen, J. (Ed.), Research handbook on the economics of torts (pp. 279–304). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoetger, L. A., Devine, D. J., Brank, E. M., Drew, R. M., & Rees, R. (2022). The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, D. A. (2016). From promise to form: How contracting online changes consumers. New York University Law Review, 91, 1595–1650.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R. (2010). Just negotiation. Washington University Law Review, 88, 381–432.Google Scholar
Illinois Forms Jury Instructions § 110.01.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, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49–86.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6Google ScholarPubMed
Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. P., & Benson, M. L. (2016). Emotional reactions to employee theft and the managerial dilemmas small business owners face. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, J. J., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 90, 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lench, H. C., Safer, M. A., & Levine, L. J. (2011). Focalism and the underestimation of future emotion: When it’s worse than imagined. Emotion, 11(2), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lens, K. M. E., van Doorn, J., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). You shouldn’t feel that way! Extending the emotional victim effect through the mediating role of expectancy violation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.777962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, L. J., Lench, H. C., Karnaze, M. M., & Carlson, S. J. (2018). Bias in predicted and remembered emotion. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (2014). Behavioral law and economics of property law: Achievements and challenges. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 377–404). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, A., Young, R. L., & Brewer, N. (2022). Autistic adults may be erroneously perceived as deceptive and lacking credibility. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. A. (2023). Evidence law’s blind spots. Iowa Law Review, 109, 189–239.Google Scholar
Maguire, M. (1980). The impact of burglary upon victims. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many?: People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interactions, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, P. (2015). The entrapment defense. LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal-injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.91Google ScholarPubMed
McGraw, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P. E., & Kristel, O. V. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/376805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. A., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment & Decision Making, 5, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mott, N. L., Hans, V. P., & Simpson, L. (2000). What’s half a lung worth? Civil jurors’ accounts of their award decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 24(4), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005540229224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. Clark Boardman.Google Scholar
Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, J. (2018). The social psychology of property: Looking beyond market exchange. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, J. & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: Proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(4), 713–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, J., Diamond, S. S., & Patton, M. M. (2008). Government takings of private property. In Persily, N., Citrin, J., & Egan, P. J (Eds.), Public opinion and constitutional controversy (pp. 287–310). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M.-H. (2012). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97, 255–304.Google Scholar
Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2002). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419–456.Google Scholar
Nash, J. R. (2008). Packaging property: The effect of paradigmatic framing of property rights symposium: A psychological perspective on property law. Tulane Law Review, 83, 691–734.Google Scholar
Nash, J. R., & Stern, S. M. (2009). Property frames. Washington University Law Review, 87, 449–504.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitschke, F. T., McKimmie, B. M., & Vanman, E. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of the emotional victim effect for female adult rape complainants: Does complainant distress influence credibility? Psychological Bulletin, 145, 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogloff, J. R. P. (2002). Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century. In Ogloff, J. R. P. (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 1–33). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
O’Grady, C. (2016). A behavioral approach to lawyer mistake and apology. New England Law Review, 51, 7–51.Google Scholar
O’Grady, C. & Eldred, T. (2021). Beyond the rules: Behavioral legal ethics and professional responsibility. West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, A. M. (2015). A behavioral theory of legal ethics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1639–1669.Google Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V., Percy, E. J., Sherman, S. J., & Tormala, Z. L. (2011). Counterfactual potency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 30–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phalen, H. J., Salerno, J. M., & Nadler, J. (2021). Emotional evidence in court. In Bandes, S. A., Madeira, J. L., Temple, K. D. & White, E. K. (Eds.), Research handbook on law and emotion (pp. 288–311). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119085.00033Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805).Google Scholar
Plaut, V. C., & Bartlett III, R. P. (2012). Blind consent? A social psychological investigation of non-readership of click-through agreements. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic analysis of law. Little Brown.Google Scholar
Quintanilla, V. D., & Avtgis, A. B. (2016). The public believes predispute binding arbitration clauses are unjust: Ethical implications for dispute-system design in the time of vanishing trials. Fordham Law Review, 85, 2119–2150.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. (1998). A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 571–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. (2000). The “new” law and psychology: A reply to critics, skeptics, and cautious supporters. Cornell Law Review, 85, 739–766.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J. (2003). Misunderstanding ability, misallocating responsibility. Brooklyn Law Review, 68, 1055–1092.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J. (1981). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 34, 957.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Edkins, V. A., Bibas, S., & Madon, S. (2017). The psychology of defendant plea decision making. American Psychologist, 72, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Determining punitive damages: Empirical insights and implications for reform. Buffalo Law Review, 50, 103–203.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2014). Litigation and settlement. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), Handbook on behavioral economics and the law (pp. 623–642). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2015). Behavioral ethics meets legal ethics. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., Bregant, J., & Winship, V. (2023). Settlement schemas: How laypeople understand civil settlement. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(3), 488–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The psychology of tort law. New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Sternlight, J. R. (2013). Behavioral legal ethics. Arizona State Law Journal, 45, 1107–1182.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Sternlight, J. (2021). (2nd ed.). Psychology for lawyers: Understanding the human factors in negotiation, litigation, and decision making. ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312716354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, P., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Westview Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Kurzban, R. (2007). Concordance and conflict in intuitions of justice. Minnesota Law Review, 91(6), 1829–1907.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roese, N. J., Fessel, F., Summerville, A., Kruger, J., & Dilich, M. A. (2006). The propensity effect: When foresight trumps hindsight. Psychological Science, 17, 305–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. R., Nadler, J., & Clark, J. (2006). Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9030-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. J., & Spellman, B. A. (2016). The psychological foundations of evidence law. New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salerno, J. M. (2021). The impact of experienced and expressed emotion on legal factfinding. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherr, K. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kassin, S. M. (2020). Cumulative disadvantage: A psychological framework for understanding how innocence can lead to confession, wrongful conviction, and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619896608CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, S. (July 2017). Behind the wheel: Who’s to blame when self-driving cars crash? ABA Journal, 18–19.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. A. (2018). The error theory of contract. Maryland Law Review, 78, 147–204.Google Scholar
Sevier, J. (2014). Testing Tribe’s triangle: Juries, hearsay, and psychological distance. Georgetown Law Journal, 103, 879.Google Scholar
Sevier, J. (2021). Evidence law and empirical psychology. In Dahlman, C. (Ed.), Philosophical foundations of evidence law (p. 349). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, S. J., & Hoffmann, J. L. (2007). The psychology and law of voluntary manslaughter: What can psychology research teach us about the “heat of passion” defense? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, D. (2012). In doubt: The psychology of the criminal justice process. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924, 937 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar
Smedley, M. (2019). Hearsay in the modern age: Balancing practicality and reliability by amending federal rule of evidence 801 (d)(1)(A). George Washington Law Review, 87, 207.Google Scholar
Smith, K. A. (2005). Psychology, factfinding, and entrapment. Michigan Law Review, 103(4), 759–806.Google Scholar
Sommers, R. (2020). Commonsense consent. Yale Law Journal, 129, 2232–2605.Google Scholar
Sommers, R. (2021). Experimental jurisprudence. Science, 373(6,553), 394–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spellman, B. A., & Frampton, T. W. (2024). Reasoning in the shadow of evidence law. In Miller, M. K., Yelderman, L. A., Cantone, J. A., Huss, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psychology and legal decision making (pp. 395–411). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A., & Kincannon, A. (2001). The relation between counterfactual (“but for”) and causal reasoning: Experimental findings and implications for jurors’ decisions. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64(4), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellman, B. A., & Schauer, F. (2013). Social cognition and the law. In Carlston, D. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (Ch. 40; pp. 829–850). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starr, E., Prescott, J. J., & Bishara, N. (2020). The behavioral effects of (unenforceable) contracts. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 36(3), 633–687.Google Scholar
Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, S. M., & Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (2020). The psychology of property law. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, R., & Stremitzer, A. (2020). Promises, reliance, and psychological lock-in. The Journal of Legal Studies, 49, 33–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundby, S. E. (1997). Capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy remorse and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1557–1598.Google Scholar
Teichman, D., Tor, A., & Zamir, E. (2023). If you can’t beat them, join them: Richard Posner and behavioral law and economics. History of Economic Ideas, 31, 67–75.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobia, K. (2022). Experimental jurisprudence. The University of Chicago Law Review, 89(3), 735–802.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuerkheimer, D. (2017). Incredible women: Sexual violence and the credibility discount. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166, 1–58.Google Scholar
Tuerkheimer, D. (2021). Credible: Why we doubt accusers and protect abusers. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice-criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States District Courts, Civil Cases Terminated, by District and Action Taken, During the 12-Month Period Ending June 30 (2024), tbl. C-4A, USCourts.gov, www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/c-4/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary/2024/06/30.Google Scholar
Vallano, J. P. (2013). Psychological injuries and legal decision making in civil cases: What we know and what we do not know. Psychological Injury & Law, 6, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vidmar, N. & Schuller, R. A. (1987). Individual differences and the pursuit of legal rights: A preliminary inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Chin, J. (2007). Feeling duped: Emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of being exploited by others. Review of General Psychology, 11, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, B. H. (2006). Sentencing without remorse. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 38, 131–168.Google Scholar
Weisman, R. (2016). Showing remorse: Law and the social control of emotion. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of probability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, S. C., & Bechler, C. J. (2021). Objects and self-identity. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiener, R. L., Winter, R. J., Rogers, M., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Kadela, K., Hackney, A., & Warren, L. (2002). Evaluating published research in psychology and law: A gatekeeper analysis of law and human behavior. In Ogloff, J. R. P. (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 371–405). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
Wilford, M. S., & Redlich, A. D. (May, 2018). (Guest editors). Special issue on guilty pleas. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24. 397–518.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2010). Do liquidated damages encourage breach? A psychological experiment. Michigan Law Review, 108, 633–671.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2011). Breaching the mortgage contract: The behavioral economics of strategic default. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 1547–1584.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2012). Transferring trust: Reciprocity norms and assignment of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(3), 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2014). A psychological account of consent to fine print. Iowa Law Review, 99, 1745–1784.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2015a). Incentives to breach. American Law and Economic Review, 47, 290–311.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2015b). Intuitive formalism in contract. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163, 2109–2129.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2017). The perverse consequences of disclosing standard terms. Cornell Law Review, 103, 117–176.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2020). Justifying bad deals. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169, 193–240.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Baron, J. (2009). Moral judgment and moral heuristics in breach of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Hoffman, D. (2010) Breach is for suckers. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63, 1001–1046.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Hoffman, D. (2015). The common sense of contract formation. Stanford Law Review, 67, 1269–1301.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., Hoffman, D., & Campbell, E. (2023). Expecting specific performance. New York University Law Review, 98, 1633–1695.Google Scholar
Zhong, R., Baranoski, M., Feigenson, N., Davidson, L., Buchanan, A., & Zonana, H. V. (2014). So you’re sorry? The role of remorse in criminal law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(1), 39–48.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×