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-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:30:45.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

II - Ontology and Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2021

Edited by
Bartosz Brożek ,
Jaap Hage  and
Nicole Vincent
Bartosz Brożek
Affiliation:
Jagiellonian University, Krakow
Jaap Hage
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Nicole Vincent
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Mind
A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences
 , pp. 97 - 214
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

References

Aichhorn, M., Perner, J., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006). Do Visual Perspective Tasks Need Theory of Mind? NeuroImage 30, 1059–1068.Google Scholar
Andrews, K. (2009). Understanding Norms Without a Theory of Mind. Inquiry 52, 433–448.Google Scholar
Andrews, K. (2015). The Folk Psychological Spiral: Explanation, Regulation, and Language. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 53, 50–66.Google Scholar
Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s Understanding of the Speech Act of Promising. Journal of Child Language 15, 157–173.Google Scholar
Baillargeon, R., He, Z., Setoh, P. et al. (2013). False-Belief Understanding and Why It Matters. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–95.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioural Brain Sciences 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 617–645.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). Situated Conceptualization: Theory and Application. In Coello, Y. & Fischer, M. H. (eds.), Perceptual and Emotional Embodiment. Vol. 1, pp. Foundations of Embodied Cognition. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
Becchio, C., & Bertone, C. (2004). Wittgenstein Running: Neural Mechanisms of Collective Intentionality and We-mode. Consciousness and Cognition 13, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becchio, C., Del Giudice, M., Dal Monte, O., Latini-Corazzini, L., & Pia, L. (2013). In Your Place: Neuropsychological Evidence for Altercentric Remapping in Embodied Perspective Taking. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 8, 165–170.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Birch, J. (2017). The Philosophy of Social Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children’s Beliefs about Violating Gender Norms: Boys Shouldn’t Look Like Girls, and Girls Shouldn’t Act Like Boys. Sex Roles 48, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boesch, C. (2002). Cooperative Hunting Roles among Taïe Chimpanzees. Human Nature 13, 27–46.Google Scholar
Bolt, N. K., & Loehr, J. D. (2017). The Predictability of a Partner’s Actions Modulates the Sense of Joint Agency. Cognition 161, 60–65.Google Scholar
Borghi, A., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A., & Pecher, D. (2011). Introduction to the Special Topic Embodied and Grounded Cognition. Frontiers in Psychology 2, 1–3.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1992). Shared Cooperative Activities. The Philosophical Review 101, 327–341.Google Scholar
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2013). Rule-Following: From Imitation to the Normative Mind. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, E., Manzi, G., & Arsuaga, J. L. (2003). Encephalization and Allometric Trajectories in the Genus Homo: Evidence from the Neanderthal and Modern Lineages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, 15335–40.Google Scholar
Burazin, L. (2016). Can There Be an Artefact Theory of Law? Ratio Juris 29, 385–401.Google Scholar
Burazin, L. (2018). Legal Systems as Abstract Institutional Artifacts. In Burazin, L., Himma, K. E., and Roversi (eds.), C., Law as an Artifact. 112–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burazin, L., Himma, K. E., & Roversi, C. (eds.) (2018). Law as an Artifact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would Still People Obey Today? American Psychologist 64, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttelmann, D. (2013). Selective Imitation of In-Group Over Out-Group Members in 14-Month-Old Infants. Child Development 84, 422–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfill, S. (2012). Joint Action and Development. The Philosophical Quarterly 62, 23–47.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Canale, D. (2014). Is Law Grounded in Joint Action? Rechtstheorie 45, 289–312.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control and Children’s Theory of Mind. Child Development 72, 1032–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004). Executive Function and Theory of Mind: Stability and Prediction from Age 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology 40, 1105–1122.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. (2006). Instrumental, Social, and Shared Goals and Intentions in Imitation. In Rogers, S. J. & Williams, J. H. G. (eds.), Imitation and the Social Mind: Autism and Typical Development. New York and London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chilovi, S., & Pavlakos, G. (2019). Law Determination as Grounding: A Common Framework for Jurisprudence. Legal Theory 25, 53–76.Google Scholar
Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2007). The Working Memory Account of Neanderthal Cognition: How Phonological Storage Capacity May Be Related to Recursion and the Pragmatics of Modern Speech. Journal of Human Evolution 52, 707–10.Google Scholar
Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2009). The Rise of Homo sapiens: The Evolution of Modern Thinking. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Costa, M., & Bonetti, L. (2016). Geometrical Factors in the Perception of Sacredness. Perception 45(11), 1240–1266.Google Scholar
Crowe, J. (2014). Law as an Artifact Kind. Monash University Law Review 40, 737–757.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. L. (2006). The Second-Person Standpoint: Respect, Morality, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Quervain, D. J. F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., et al. (2004). The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment. Science 305, 1254–1258.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. (1998). Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes, 2nd revised ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. (2014). Natural Normativity: The “Is” and “Ought” of Animal Behaviour. Behaviour 151. 185–204.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. (2016). Apes Know What Others Believe. Science 354, 39–40.Google Scholar
Doherty, M., & Perner, J. (1998). Metalinguistic Awareness and Theory of Mind: Just Two Words for the Same Thing? Cognitive Development 13, 279–305.Google Scholar
Dubreuil, B. (2010). Human Evolution and the Origins of Hierarchies: The State of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., & van Niekerk, K. (2005). Nassarius kraussianus Shell Beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for Symbolic Behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 3–24.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, K. (2016). The Functions of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, B. (2015). The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, B. (2018). Social Ontology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third Party Punishment and Social Norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 25, 63–87.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000a). Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, 159–181.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000b). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Good Experiments. The American Economic Review 90, 980–994.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fittipaldi, E. (2012). Everyday Legal Ontology: A Psychological and Linguistic Investigation within the Framework of Leon Petrażycki’s Theory of Law. Milan: LED.Google Scholar
Fittipaldi, E. (2013). Conoscenza giuridica ed errore: Saggio sullo statuto epistemologico degli asserti prodotti dalla scienza giuridica. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
Fittipaldi, E. (2016). Leon Petrażycki’s Theory of Law. In Pattaro, E. & Roversi, C. (eds.), Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World. Tome 2, Main Orientations and Topics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 443–503.Google Scholar
Fittipaldi, E. (in press). Petrażycki’s Puzzle of Jural Emotions: Bridging the Psychological Theory of Law with Modern Social and Psychological Sciences. In Fittipaldi, E. & Treviño, A.J. (eds.), The Living Legacy of Leon Petrażycki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Francey, D., & Bergmüller, R. (2012). Images of Eyes Enhance Investments in a Real-Life Public Good. PLoS ONE 7, e37397.Google Scholar
Frank, J. (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Brentano’s.Google Scholar
Gallotti, M. (2012). A Naturalistic Argument for the Irreducibility of Collective Intentionality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42, 3–30.Google Scholar
Geiger, T. (1964). Vorstudien zu einer Soziologie des Rechts. Neuwied am Rhein & Berlin: Luchterhand. (1st ed. 1947.)Google Scholar
German, T. P., & Johnson, S. C. (2002). Function and the Origins of the Design Stance. Journal of Cognition and Development 3, 279–300.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1989). On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2014). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Göckeritz, S., Schmidt, M. F. H., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Young Children’s Creation and Transmission of Social Norms. Cognitive Development 30, 81–95.Google Scholar
Gräfenhain, M., Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Young Children’s Understanding of Joint Commitments. Developmental Psychology 45, 1430–1443.Google Scholar
Gräfenhain, M., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Three-Year-Olds’ Understanding of the Consequences of Joint Commitments. PLoS ONE 8, e73039.Google Scholar
Green, L. (2010). Law as a Means. In Cane, P. (ed.), The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 169–188.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2008). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.), Moral Psychology. Vol. 3. The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 35–79.Google Scholar
Hage, J. (2018). Foundations and Building Blocks of Law. Maastricht: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Hägerström, A. (1917). Till frågan om den objektiva rättens begrepp. I. Viljeteorien. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln/ Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hägerström, A. (1941). Der römische Obligationsbegriff im Lichte der allgemeinen römischen Rechtsanschauung. II. Uppsala: Alqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2003). The Moral Emotions. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 852–870.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hamann, K., Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Children’s Developing Commitments to Joint Goals. Child Development 83, 137–145.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973a). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1, 69–97.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973b). Naval Research Reviews: A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2013). Respectful Deference: Conformity Revisited. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 230–234.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. (1st ed. 1961.)Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). Rethinking the Nature of Cruelty: The Role of Identity Leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist 74, 809–822.Google Scholar
Haun, D. B. M., Rekers, Y., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Children Conform to the Behaviour of Peers; Other Great Apes Stick With What They Know. Psychological Science 25, 2160–2167.Google Scholar
Haun, D. B. M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Conformity to Peer Pressure in Preschool Children. Child Development 82, 1759–1767.Google Scholar
Henshilwood, C. S., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., & Jacobs, Z. (2004). Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa. Science 384, 404.Google Scholar
Hermann, B., Thoni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial Punishment Across Societies. Science 319, 1362–1367.Google Scholar
Himma, K. E. (2018). The Conceptual Function of Law: Law, Coercion, and Keeping the Peace. In Burazin, L., Himma, K. E., & Roversi, C. (eds.), Law as an Artifact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–159.Google Scholar
Hindriks, F., & Guala, F. (2015). Institutions, Rules, and Equilibria: A Unified Theory. Journal of Institutional Economics 11, 459–480.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What Are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues 15, 1–23.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. B. (2014). The Punisher’s Brain: The Evolution of Judge and Jury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. K. (2005). Causal Knowledge and Imitation/emulation Switching in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Children. Animal Cognition 8, 164–181.Google Scholar
House, B. R., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J. et al. (2013). Ontogeny of Prosocial Behaviour across Diverse Societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 14586–91.Google Scholar
Hovers, E., Ilani, S., Bar-Yosef, O. & Vandermeersch, B. (2003). An Early Case of Color Symbolism Ocher Use by Modern Humans in Qafzeh Cave. Current Anthropology 44, 491–522.Google Scholar
Jones, O. D., & Kurzban, R. (2010). Intuitions of Punishment. The University of Chicago Law Review 77, 1633–1640.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. (2005). Becoming Status Conscious: Children’s Appreciation of Social Reality. Philosophical Explorations 8, pp. 245–262.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W. (1998). Natural and Artifactual Kinds: Are Children Realists or Relativists About Categories? Developmental Psychology 34, 376–391.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W. (2013). Status Seeking: The Importance of Roles in Early Social Cognition. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 216–219.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W., & Cornelius, R. (2007). What Is to Be Done? Children’s Ascriptions of Conventional Obligations. Child Development 78, 859–878.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W., & Lawson, C. A. (2008). Development of Social Category Representations: Early Appreciation of Roles and Deontic Relations. Child Development 79, 577–593.Google Scholar
Kalish, C. W., & Shiverick, S. M. (2004). Rules and Preferences: Children’s Reasoning about Motives for Behavior. Cognitive Development 19, 410–416.Google Scholar
Karakostas, A., & Zizzo, D. J. (2016). Compliance and the Power of Authority. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 124, 67–80.Google Scholar
Kelly, D., Stich, S., Haley, K., Eng, S., & Fessler, D. (2007). Harm, Affect, and the Moral/conventional Distinction. Mind and Language 22, 117–131.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1992). Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. by Paulson, S. and Paulson, B. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Holt, M. B., & Egan, L. C. (2004). Two- and Three-Year-Olds Infer and Reason about Design Intentions in Order to Categorize Broken Objects. Developmental Science 7, 543–549.Google Scholar
Kenward, B. (2012). Over-Imitating Preschoolers Believe Unnecessary Actions Are Normative and Enforce Their Performance by a Third Party. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 112, 195–207.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). Children’s Selective Trust in Native-Accented Speakers. Developmental Science 14(1), 106–111.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Accent Trumps Race in Guiding Children’s Social Preferences. Social Cognition 27, 623–634.Google Scholar
Konvalinka, I., Vuust, P., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C.D. (2010). Follow You, Follow Me: Continuous Mutual Prediction and Adaptation in Joint Tapping. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63, 2220–2230.Google Scholar
Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great Apes Anticipate that Other Individuals Will Act According to False Beliefs. Science 354, 110–114.Google Scholar
Kuhlmeier, V. A., & Boysen, S. T. (2002). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Recognize Spatial and Object Correspondences Between a Scale Model and Its Referent. Psychological Science 13, 60–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsson, S. (2017). Conceptions in the Code: How Metaphors Explain Legal Challenges in Digital Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, T. (2012). Ontology and the Study of Social Reality: Emergence, Organisation, Community, Power, Social Relations, Corporations, Artefacts and Money. Cambridge Journal of Economics 36, 345–385.Google Scholar
Lawson, T. (2016). Comparing Conceptions of Social Ontology: Emergent Social Entities and/or Institutional Facts? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 46, 359–399.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. (2011). The Demarcation Problem in Jurisprudence: A New Case for Scepticism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31, 663–677.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D. E., McBratney, B. M., & Krovitz, G. (2002). The Evolution and Development of Cranial Form in Homo sapiens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 1134–1139.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Wellman, H. M., & Tardif, T. (2008). Theory of Mind Development in Chinese Children: A Meta-Analysis of False-Belief Understanding Across Cultures and Languages. Developmental Psychology 44, 523–531.Google Scholar
Lorini, G. (2018). Animal Norms: An Investigation of Normativity in the Non-Human Social World. Law, Culture, and the Humanities 2018, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872118800008Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. (2016). From Individual to Plural Agency. Collective Action I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. E. & Keil, F. C. (2013). Overimitation and the Development of Causal Understanding. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–149.Google Scholar
Mant, C. M., & Perner, J. (1988). The Child’s Understanding of Commitment. Developmental Psychology 24, 343–351.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Shaffer, M. M. (1978). Context Theory of Classification Learning. Psychological Review 85, 207–238.Google Scholar
Michael, J. (2011). Shared Emotions and Joint Action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2, 355–373.Google Scholar
Michael, J., & Pacherie, E. (2015). On Commitments and Other Uncertainty Reduction Tools in Joint Action. Journal of Social Ontology 1, 89–120.Google Scholar
Michael, J., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016a). The Sense of Commitment: A Minimal Approach. Frontiers in Psychology 6, Article 1968.Google Scholar
Michael, J., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016b). Observing Joint Action: Coordination Creates Commitment. Cognition 157, 106–113.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Miller, S. (2001). Social Action: A Teleological Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (2006). On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Ansell-Pearson, K.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An Exemplar-Based Random Walk Model of Speeded Classification. Psychological Review 104, 266–300.Google Scholar
Noyes, A., & Dunham, Y. (2017). Mutual Intentions as a Causal Framework for Social Groups. Cognition 162, 133–142.Google Scholar
Noyes, A., Keil, F. C., & Dunham, Y. (2018). The Emerging Causal Understanding of Institutional Objects. Cognition 170, 83–87.Google Scholar
Olivecrona, K. (1971). Law as Fact, 2nd ed. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-Month-Old Infants Understand False Beliefs? Science 308, 255–258.Google Scholar
Pacherie, E. (2011). Framing Joint Action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2, 173–192.Google Scholar
Pacherie, E., & Dokic, J. (2006). From Mirror Neurons to Joint Actions. Cognitive Systems Research 7, 101–112.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1935). The Place of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory. International Journal of Ethics 45, 282–316.Google Scholar
Passerini Glazel, L. (2005). La forza normativa del tipo: teoria della categorizzazione e pragmatica dell’atto giuridico. Macerata: Quodlibet.Google Scholar
Pattaro, E. (2005). A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, The Law and the Right: A Reappraisal of the Reality that Ought to Be, ed. Pattaro, E.. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pattaro, E. (2016). Axel Hägerström at the Origins of the Uppsala School. In Pattaro, E. and Roversi, C. (eds.), Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World. Tome 2, Main Orientations and Topics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 319–363.Google Scholar
Perner, J., Aichhorn, M., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006). Thinking of Mental and Other Representations: The Roles of Left and Right Temporo-parietal Junction. Social Neuroscience 1, 245–258.Google Scholar
Petrażycki, A. (1955). Law and Morality, ed. Timasheff, N. S.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1997). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press. (1st ed. 1932.)Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D. (2019). Robust Normativity, Morality, and Legal Positivism. In Plunkett, D., Shapiro, S. J. & Toh, K. (eds.), Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–136.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H. (2007). Play, Games and the Development of Collective Intentionality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 115, 53–67.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H. (2008). Taking Fiction Seriously: Young Children Understand the Normative Structure of Joint Pretence Games. Developmental Psychology 44, 1191–1205.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). The Ontogeny of Social Ontology: Steps to Shared Intentionality and Status Functions. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts. Berlin: Springer, 113–137.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (2005a). On Tools and Toys: How Children Learn to Act on and Pretend with “Virgin” Objects. Developmental Science 8, 57–73.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (2005b). How Children Turn Objects into Symbols: A Cultural Learning Account. InNamy (ed.), L., Symbol Use and Symbol Representation. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The Sources of Normativity: Young Children’s Awareness of the Normative Structure of Games. Developmental Psychology 44, 875–881.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, A., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Working Toward the Experimenter: Reconceptualizing Obedience within the Milgram Paradigm as Identification-Based Followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 315–324.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. (2013). The Conceptual Structure of Social Categories: The Social Allegiance Hypothesis. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 258–262.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). A Developmental Examination of the Conceptual Structure of Animal, Artifact, and Human Social Categories across Two Cultural Contexts. Cognitive Psychology 59, 244–274.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. I., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Kurzban, R. (2007). Concordance and Conflict in Intuitions of Justice. Minnesota Law Review 91, 1829–1907.Google Scholar
Rockenbach, B., & Milinski, M. (2006). The Efficient Interaction of Indirect Reciprocity and Costly Punishment. Nature 444, 718–723.Google Scholar
Rohr, C. R., von, Burkart, J. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (2011). Evolutionary Precursors of Social Norms in Chimpanzees: a New Approach. Biology and Philosophy 26, 1–30.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. New Jersey: Hillsdale, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Young Children’s Understanding of Violations of Property Rights. Cognition 121, 219–227.Google Scholar
Roversi, C. (2016). Legal Metaphoric Artefacts. In Stelmach, J., Brozek, B., & Kurek, Ł (eds.), The Emergence of Normative Orders. Krakow: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 215–280.Google Scholar
Roversi, C. (2019). Law as an Artefact: Three Questions. Analisi e Diritto 2, 41–68.Google Scholar
Roversi, C., Borghi, A. M., & Tummolini, L. (2013). A Marriage Is an Artefact and Not a Walk that We Take Together: An Experimental Study on the Categorization of Artefacts. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4, 527–542.Google Scholar
Roversi, C., Pasqui, L., & Borghi, A. M. (2017). Institutional Mimesis: An Experimental Study on the Grounding of Legal Concepts. In Stelmach, J., Brożek, B., & Kurek, Ł (eds.), The Province of Jurisprudence Naturalized. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 130–153.Google Scholar
Sacco, R. (2007). Antropologia giuridica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science 300, 1755–1758.Google Scholar
Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People Thinking About Thinking People: The Role of the Temporoparietal Junction in Theory of Mind. NeuroImage 19, 1835–1842.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2012). On the Nature of the Nature of Law. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 98, 457–467.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2015). The Force of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M., Hardecker, S., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Preschoolers Understand the Normativity of Cooperatively Structured Competition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 143, 34–47.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2002). Collective Intentions and Actions. In Searle, J. R., Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–105. (1st ed. 1990.)Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing Others’ Actions: Just Like One’s Own? Cognition 88, 11–21.Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How to Share a Task: Corepresenting Stimulus-Response Mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology 31, 1234–1246.Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G.,. Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin Peaks: An ERP Study of Action Planning and Control in Coacting Individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18, 859–870.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Sznycer, D., Al-Shawaf, L., et al. (2017). The Grammar of Anger: Mapping the Computational Architecture of a Recalibrational Emotion. Cognition 168, 110–128.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2011). Legality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, A. W., Li, W., & Olson, K. R. (2013). Reputation is Everything. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 220–224.Google Scholar
Shergill, S. S., Bays, P. M., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (2003). Two Eyes for an Eye: The Neuroscience of Force Escalation. Science 301, 187.Google Scholar
Skezely, M., & Michael, J. (2018). Investing in Commitment: Persistence in a Joint Action Is Enhanced by the Perception of a Partner’s Effort. Cognition 174, 37–42.Google Scholar
Stake, J. E. (2006). The Property “Instinct.” In Zeki, S. and Goodenough, O. (eds.), Law and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Takahashi, H., Yahata, N., Koeda, M., et al. (2004). Brain Activation Associated with Evaluative Processes of Guilt and Embarrassment: An fMRI Study. NeuroImage 23, 967–974.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, B. (2017a). Necessary and Universal Truths about Law? Ratio Juris 30, 3–24.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, B. (2017b). A Realistic Theory of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J.-P., Gelaes, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2018). Does Practice in Category Learning Increase Rule Use or Exemplar Use – or Both? Memory and Cognition 46, 530–543.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. (1999). Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. (2004). Let’s Pretend! Children and Joint Action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35, 75–97.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2016). A Natural History of Human Morality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2005). The Emergence of Social Cognition in Three Young Chimpanzees. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 70, 1–131.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of Cultural Cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 28, 675–735.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Moll, H. (2013). Why Don’t Apes Understand False Beliefs? In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 81–87.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35–37.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1985). Social Evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings Pub.Google Scholar
Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Jing, J.-T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J.-L. (2006). A Common Coding Framework in Self-Other Interaction: Evidence from Joint Action Task. Experimental Brain Research 175, 353–362.Google Scholar
Tsai, C.-C., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The GROOP Effect: Groups Mimic Group Actions. Cognition 118, 138–143.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1995). The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman-Margalit, E. (1977). The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vaesen, K. (2012). The Cognitive Bases of Human Tool Use. Behavioural Brain Sciences 35, 203–262.Google Scholar
Vaish, A., Missana, M., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Three-Year-Old Children Intervene in Third-Party Moral Transgressions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29, 124–130.Google Scholar
Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C. et al. (2006). Middle Paleolithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785–1788.Google Scholar
Van Winden, F. (2007). Affect and Fairness in Economics. Social Justice Research 20, 35–52.Google Scholar
Vesper, C., Abramova, E., Bütepage, J. et al. (2017). Joint Action: Mental Representations, Shared Information and General Mechanisms for Coordinating with Others. Frontiers in Psychology 7, Article 2039.Google Scholar
Vesper, C., Butterfill, S., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2010). A Minimal Architecture for Joint Action. Neural Networks 23, 998–1003.Google Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Varieties of Altruism in Children and Chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Science 13, 397–402.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-Analysis of Theory-of-Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief. Child Development 72, 655–684.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. (2013). Social Cognition: Making Us Smart, or Sometimes Making Us Dumb? Overimitation, Conformity, Nonconformity, and the Transmission of Culture in Ape and Child. In Banaji, M. and Gelman, S. (eds.), Navigating the Social World: What Infants, Children, and Other Species Can Teach Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–154.Google Scholar
Whiten, A., McGuigan, N., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Hopper, L. M. (2009). Emulation, Imitation, Over-imitation and the Scope of Culture for Child and Chimpanzee. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364, 2417–2428.Google Scholar
Wills, A. J., Inkster, A. B., & Milton, F. (2015). Combination or Differentiation? Two Theories of Processing Order in Classification. Cognitive Psychology 80, 1–33.Google Scholar
Winter, S. L. (2001). A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

References

Alexy, Robert. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The Unconscious Mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(1), 73–9.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin. (2012). Louder Than Words. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brożek, Bartosz. (2004). Defeasibility of Legal Reasoning. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar
Brożek, Bartosz. (2008). Rationality and Discourse: Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Brożek, Bartosz. (2011). Beyond Interpretation. In Stelmach, J. & Schmidt, R. (eds.), Krakauer-Augsburger Rechtsstudien: Die Grenzen der rechtsdogmatischen Interpretation. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
Brożek, Bartosz. (2020). The Legal Mind: A New Introduction to Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, Richard W. (1988). The Early Evolution of Creative Thinking: Evidence from Monkeys and Apes. In Mithen, Steven (ed.), Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory. London, Routledge, pp. 110–24.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. (2005). Word, Niche, and Super-Niche: How Language Makes Minds Matter More. Theoria 54, 255–68.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. (2006). Descartes’ Error. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1991). Somatic Markers and the Guidance of Behaviour: Theory and Preliminary Testing. In Levin, H. S., Eisenberg, H. M., Benton, A. L. (eds.), Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–29.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1986). Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against Method. London & New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1974). Explanation and Scientific Understanding. The Journal of Philosophy 71(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review 86, 778–830.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2000). Dialectical Models in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 137–72.Google Scholar
Hage, Jaap. (2013). Three Kinds of Coherentism. In Araszkiewicz, M., Šavelka, J. (eds.), Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence, Law and Philosophy Library, vol. 107. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Harper, Robert. (1904). The Code of Hammurabi. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff’s Requests and Plaintiff’s Identity on Punitive Damage Awards. Law and Human Behavior 23, 445–70.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, Joseph C., Jr. (1929). Judgment Intuitive. The Function of the Hunch in Judicial Decisions. Cornell Law Review 14(3), 274–88.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Arthur. (1986). Vorüberlegungen zu einer juristischen Logik und Ontologie der Relationen: Grundlegung einer personalen Rechtstheorie. Rechtstheorie 17 (3), 257–76.Google Scholar
Kozhevnikov, Maria. (2007). Cognitive Styles in the Context of Modern Psychology: Toward an Integrated Framework of Cognitive Style. Psychological Bulletin 133(3), 464–81.Google Scholar
Kulesza, Jan. (2007). O pojmowaniu zaniechania w polskiej nauce prawa karnego. Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych XI(2).Google Scholar
Langevoort, Donald C. (1998). Behavioral Theories of Judgment and Decision-Making in Legal Scholarship: A Literature Review. Vanderbilt Law Review 51, 1499–1540.Google Scholar
Lillard, Angeline. (1998). Ethnopsychologies: Cultural Variations in Theories of Mind. Psychological Bulletin 123, 3–32.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. (1994). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Magee, Bryan. (1997). Confessions of a Philosopher. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
McCaffery, E. J., Kahneman, D., & Spitzer, M. L. (1995). Framing the Jury: Cognitive Perspectives on Pain and Suffering Awards. Virginia Law Review 81(1341), 1341–1420.Google Scholar
Morris, M., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and Cause: American and Chinese Attributions for Social and Physical Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(6), 949–71.Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan. (2013). Mind and Its Evolution: A Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Peer, E., & Gamliel, E. (2013). Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions. Court Review 49(2013), 114–18.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm. (1955). How Do We Apply Reason to Values? Journal of Philosophy 52(26), 797–802.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traite de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhetorique. Paris: Pressess Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Petrażycki, Leon. (2011). Law and Morality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. (1908). Mechanical Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review 8, 605–23.Google Scholar
Prakken, Henry. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Orman, Van. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. In Quine, Willard Van Orman, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental Biases Resulting from Differing Availabilities of Arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, 2–12.Google Scholar
Stelmach, Jerzy. (1991). Die Hermeneutische Auffassung der Rechtsphilosophie. Ebelsbach: Verlag Rolf Gremer.Google Scholar
Stelmach, Jerzy. (2003). Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawników. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar
Stelmach, Jerzy. (2013). Uporczywe upodobanie. Olszanica, Poland: BOSZ.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J., & Brożek, B. (2006). Methods of Legal Reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–31.Google Scholar
Zoll, Andrzej (ed.). (2016). Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Tom III. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

References

Abramowicz, M. (2001). A Compromise Approach to Compromise Verdicts. California Law Review 89(2), 231–314.Google Scholar
Aharoni, E., & Hoffman, M. (in press). Evolutionary Psychology, Jurisprudence, and Sentencing. In Shackelford, T. (ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Albanese, J. S. (1984). Concern about Variation in Criminal Sentences: a Cyclical History of Reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 75, 260–271.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T. J., & Hart, K. (1988). Eliminating the Hindsight Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 72(2), 305–307.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments. Acta Psychologica 44, 211–233.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. (2014). Confronting Cognitive “Anchoring Effect” and “Blind Spot Bias” in Federal Sentencing: a Modest Solution for Reforming a Fundamental Flaw. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 104(3), 489–534.Google Scholar
Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (2010). Victims’ Responses to Apologies: the Effects of Offender Responsibility and Offense Severity. Journal of Social Psychology 134(4), 457–464.Google Scholar
Blumstein, A. (1982). On the Racial Disproportionality of United States’ Prison Population. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73, 1259–1281.Google Scholar
Bornstein, B. H., Rung, L. M., & Miller, M. K. (2002). The Effects of Defendant Remorse on Mock Juror Decisions in a Malpractice Case. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
Bouton, L., Llorente-Saguer, A., & Malherbe, F. (2018). Get Rid of Unanimity Rule: the Superiority of Majority Rules with Veto Power. Journal of Political Economy 126(1), 107–149.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. L. (2016). Representation on the Courts? The Effects of Trial Judges’ Sex and Race. Political Research Quarterly 69(4), 788–799.Google Scholar
Brillon, Y. (1983). Fear of Crime an Punitive Attitudes Among the Elderly. Criminologie 36(1), 7–29.Google Scholar
Buckholtz, J. W., Asplund, C. L., Dux, P. E., et al. (2008). The Neural Correlates of Third-Party Punishment. Neuron 60, 930–940.Google Scholar
Buckholtz, J. W., Martin, J. W., Treadway, M. T., et al. (2015). From Blame to Punishment: Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Activity Reveals Norm Enforcement Mechanisms. Neuron 87(6), 1369–1380.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The More You Ask the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(6), 519–540.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 120–138.Google Scholar
Chen, D. L., Moskowitz, T. J. & Shue, K. (2016). Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(3), 1181–1242.Google Scholar
Chew, P., & Kelley, R. (2009). The Myth of the Color-Blind Judge: an Empirical Analysis of Racial Harassment Cases. Washington University Law Review 86, pp. 1117–1166.Google Scholar
Chien, Y. L., Huang, C. J., & Shaw, D. (2005). A General Model of Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(2), 362–377.Google Scholar
Desantts, A., & Kayson, W. A. (1997). Defendants’ Characteristics of Attractiveness, Race, and Sex and Sentencing Decisions. Psychological Reports 81(2), 679–683.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., Murphy, B., & Meixner, J. (2011). Damage Anchors on Real Juries. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8(1s), 148–178.Google Scholar
Dietrich, D., & Olson, M. (1993). A Demonstration of Hindsight Bias Using the Thomas Confirmation Vote. Psychological Reports 72(2), 377–378.Google Scholar
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: the Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making. Society for Personality and Social Psychology 32, 188–200.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2013). The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Monahan, J., & Slobogin, C. (2014). Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. University of Chicago Law Review 81(2), 417–480.Google Scholar
Feldman, G., Chandrashekar, S. P., & Wong, K. F. E. (2016). The Freedom to Excel: Belief in Free Will Predicts Better Academic Performance. Personality and Individual Differences 90, 377–383.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight Is Not Equal to Foresight: the Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment Under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1(3), 288–299.Google Scholar
Gault, B. A., & Sabini, J. (2000). The Roles of Empathy, Anger, and Gender in Predicting Attitudes Toward Punitive, Reparative, and Preventative Public Policies. Cognition and Emotion 14(4), 495–-520.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as Policymakers: the Case of Trial Judges. American Journal of Political Science 25(2), 308–322.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.Google Scholar
Hell, W., Gigerenzer, G., Gauggel, S., Mall, M., & Müller, M. (1988). Hindsight Bias: an Interaction of Automatic and Motivational Factors? Memory and Cognition 16(6), 553–538.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The “Conjunction Fallacy” Revisited: How Intelligent Inferences Look Like Reasoning Errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12(4), 275–305.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. B. (2007). The Myth of Factual Innocence. Chicago-Kent Law Review 82(2), 663–690.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. B. (2014). The Punisher’s Brain: the Evolution of Judge and Jury. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. B., & Goldsmith, T. H. (2004). The Biological Roots of Punishment. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 1(2), 627–641.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M., Shen, F., Iyengar, V., & Krueger, F. (2020). The Intersectionality of Age and Gender on the Bench: Are Younger Female Judges Harsher with Serious Crimes? The Columbia Journal of Law and Gender 40(1), 128–165.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. (2006). The Multilevel Context of Criminal Sentencing: Integrating Judge- and County-Level Influences. Criminology 44(2), 259–298.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective Probability: a Judgment of Representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3(3), 430–454.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the Psychology of Prediction. Psychological Review 80(4), 237–251.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 184(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Kamin, K., & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex Post ≠ Ex Ante. Law and Human Behavior 19(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
Kelman, M., Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1996). Context-Dependence in Legal Decision Making. Journal of Legal Studies 25, 287–318.Google Scholar
Keren, G., & Wu, G. (2015). A Bird’s-Eye View of the History of Judgment and Decision-Making. In Keren, G. & Wu, G. (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group Performance and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology 55, pp. 623–655.Google Scholar
Klein, D. E., & Mitchell, G. (2010). The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. M., & Uhlman, T. M. (1977). Sisterhood in the Courtroom: Sex and Judge and Defendant in Criminal Case Disposition. Social Science Journal 14, 366–379.Google Scholar
Krueger, F., & Hoffman, M. (2016). The Emerging Neuroscience of Third-Party Punishment. Trends in Neurosciences 39(6), 499–501.Google Scholar
Krueger, F., Hoffman, M., Walter, H., & Grafman, J. (2014). An fMRI Investigation of the Effects of Belief in Free Will on Third-Party Punishment. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience 9(8), 1143–1149.Google Scholar
Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A Preliminary Inquiry Into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation. Behavioral Sciences 12(2), 113–126.Google Scholar
Leibovitch, A. (2016). Relative Judgments. Journal of Legal Studies 45(2), 281–330.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (1984). Experimental Research on Jury Decision-Making. Science 244, 1046–1050.Google Scholar
McCoy, C. (2005). The Trial Penalty and Plea Bargaining Reform. Criminal Law Quarterly 50, 67–107.Google Scholar
McCullough, M., & van Oyen Witvliet, C. (2001). The Psychology of Forgiveness. In Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, Shane J. (eds.), The Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 446–458.Google Scholar
McGregor, I., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). How Storytelling Shapes Memory and Impressions of Relationship Events Over Time. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 76(3), 403–419.Google Scholar
Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the US Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics 44, 285–314.Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T., Shepard, J., Nahmias, E., Sripada, C., & Thompson-Ross, L. (2014). The Free Will Inventory: Measuring Beliefs About Agency and Responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition 25, 27–41.Google Scholar
Nettler, G. (1959). Cruelty, Dignity, and Determinism. American Sociological Review 24, 375–384.Google Scholar
Paulus, D. L., & Carey, J. M. (2011). The FAD-PLUS: Measuring Lay Beliefs Regarding Free Will and Related Constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment 93(1), 96–104.Google Scholar
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: the Story Model. Cardozo Law Review 13, 519–557.Google Scholar
Peter-Hagene, L. C., & Salerno, J. M. (2019). Jury Decision Making. In Brewer, N. & Bradfield-Douglass, A. (eds.), Psychological Science and the Law. New York: Guilford, pp. 338–366.Google Scholar
Pietrantoni, G. (2017). Jury Deliberation. The Review: a Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 18. https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol18/iss1/7Google Scholar
Pizzi, W. T., Blair, I. V., & Judd, C. M. (2004). Discrimination in Sentencing on the Basis of Afrocentric Features. Michigan Journal of Race and Law 10, 327–354.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (1993). What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (the Same Thing Everybody Else Does). Supreme Court Economic Review 3, 1–41.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (1998). Rational Choice, Behavioral Economics, and the Law. Stanford Law Review 50, 1551–1575.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 163, 167–186.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2011). Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8, 72–98.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
Rachlinski, J. J., & Jourdan, F. (2003). The Cognitive Components of Punishment. Cornell Law Review 88, 457–485.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (1999). Anchoring in the Courtroom: the Effects of Caps on Punitive Damages. Law and Human Behavior 23, 353–373.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. K. (2014). Litigation and Settlement. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 623–642.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Kurzban, R. (2007). Concordance and Conflict in Intuitions of Justice. Minnesota Law Review 91, 1821–1907.Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5), 411–426.Google Scholar
Saks, M., Hollinger, L., Wissler, Evans D., & Hart, A. (1997). Reducing Variability in Civil Jury Awards. Law and Human Behavior 21(3), 243–256.Google Scholar
Schauer, F., & Spellman, B. (2017). Analogy, Expertise, and Experience. University of Chicago Law Review 84, 249–268.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., Hoffman, M. B., Jones, O. D., Greene, J. D., & Marois, R. (2011). Sorting Guilty Minds. New York University Law Review 86, 1306–1360.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2004). A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making. University of Chicago Law Review 71, 511–586.Google Scholar
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 29(3), 281–295.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2002). Rational Actors or Rational Fools: Implications of the Affect Heuristic for Behavioral Economics. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 31(4), 329–342.Google Scholar
Smith, E. D., & Hed, A. (1979). Effects of Offenders’ Age and Attractiveness on Sentencing by Mock Jurors. Psychological Reports 44(3), 691–694.Google Scholar
Spohn, C. (1990). The Sentencing Decisions of Black and White Judges: Expected and Unexpected Similarities. Law and Society Review 24(5), 1197–1216.Google Scholar
Steffensmeier, D., & Britt, C. L. (2001). Judges’ Race and Judicial Decision Making: Do Black Judges Sentence Differently? Social Science Quarterly 82(4), 749–764.Google Scholar
Stein, C. T., & Drouin, M. (2018). Cognitive Bias in the Courtroom: Combating the Anchoring Effect Through Tactical Debiasing. University of San Francisco Law Review 52, 393–428.Google Scholar
Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2010). Personal Philosophy and Personal Achievement: Belief in Free Will Predicts Better Job Performance. Social Psychological & Personality Science 1, 43–50.Google Scholar
Teichman, D., & Zamir, E. (2014). Judicial Decision-Making: a Behavioral Perspective. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 664–702.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials. Law and Human Behavior 11(3), 167–187.Google Scholar
Tierney, J. (1991). Behind Monty Hall’s Doors: Puzzle, Debate, and Answer? The New York Times, July 21, 1991.Google Scholar
Uhlman, T. M. (1978). Black Elite Decision Making: the Case of Trial Judges. American Journal of Political Science 22(4), 884–895.Google Scholar
United Nations (1974). Growth in United Nations Membership 1945–Present. www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/growth-united-nations-membership-1945-present/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
United States Sentencing Guidelines (2019), §3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility).Google Scholar
Vars, F. E. (2014). Evidence Law. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 703–718.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American Juries: the Verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, pp. 158–168, 175–176, 236–240, 260–262.Google Scholar
Vincent, C. A., Young, M., & Phillips, A. (1994). Why Do People Sue Doctors? A Study of Patients and Relatives Taking Legal Action. Lancet 343, 1609–1613.Google Scholar
Viney, W., Waldman, D. A., & Barchilon, J. (1982). Attitudes Toward Punishment in Relation to Beliefs in Free Will and Determinism. Human Relations 35, 939–949.Google Scholar
Viney, W., Parker-Martin, P., & Dotten, S. (1988). Belief in Free Will and Determinism and Lack of Relation to Punishment Rationale and Magnitude. Journal of General Psychology 115, pp. 15–23.Google Scholar
Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating. Psychological Science 19, 49–54.Google Scholar
Wexler, D. B., & Schopp, R. F. (1989). How and When to Correct for Juror Hindsight Bias in Mental Health Litigation: Some Preliminary Observations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 7, 485–504.Google Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Evidence? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153, 1251–1345.Google Scholar
Wood, G. (1978). The Knew-It-All-Along Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4, 345–353.Google Scholar
Wrightsman, L. S. (2010). The Psychology of the Supreme Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zamir, E. (2017). Law and Behavioral Economics. In Sellers, M. & Kirste, S. (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy . New York: Springer, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

References

Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions About Penalties and Compensation in the Context of Tort Law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 17–33.Google Scholar
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2009). The Role of Probability of Detection in Judgments of Punishment. Journal of Legal Analysis 1(2), 553–90.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (2008). Contraindicated Drug Courts. UCLA Law Review 55, 783–835.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), 284–99.Google Scholar
Chen, D. L., Moskowitz, T. J., & Shue, K. (2016). Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(3), 1181–1242.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., & Alter, A. L. (2013). Behavioral Issues of Punishment, Retribution, and Deterrence. In Shafir, E. (ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 173–205.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment. Law and Human Behavior 24(6), 659–83.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wells, M. T. (2002). Reconciling Experimental Incoherence with Real-World Coherence in Punitive Damages. Stanford Law Review 54(6), 1239–72.Google Scholar
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: the Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(2), 188–200.Google Scholar
Eren, O., & Mocan, N. (2018). Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(3), 171–205.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C. (2003). Panacea or Pandora’s Box? The Cost of Options in Negotiation. Iowa Law Review 88(3), 601–54.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001) Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review 86(4), 777–830.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Review 93(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2009). ‘The Hidden Judiciary’: an Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice. Duke Law Journal 58(7), 1477–1530.Google Scholar
Guttel, E. (2004). Overcorrection. Georgetown Law Journal 93(1), 241–84.Google Scholar
Hans, V. P., & Ermann, M. D. (1989). Responses to Corporate Versus Individual Wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior 13(2), 151–66.Google Scholar
Hatvany, N., & Strack, F. (1980). The Impact of a Discredited Key Witness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10(6), 490–509.Google Scholar
Himelein, M. J., Nietzel, M. T., & Dillehay, R. C. (1991). Effects of Prior Juror Experience on Jury Sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 9(1), 97–106.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. (1998). Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: the Psychology of Punitive Damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16(1), 49–86.Google Scholar
Kelman, M., Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1996). Context-Dependence in Legal Decision Making. The Journal of Legal Studies 25(2), 287–318.Google Scholar
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock Jurors Versus Mock Juries: the Role of Deliberations in Reactions to Inadmissible Testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(2), 153–62.Google Scholar
Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A Preliminary Inquiry Into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 12, 113–26.Google Scholar
Leibovitch, A. (2016). Relative Judgments. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 281–330.Google Scholar
Leibovitch, A. (2017). Punishing on a Curve. Northwestern University Law Review 111(5), 1205–80.Google Scholar
Liu, Z., Klöhn, L., & Spamann, H. (2019). Precedent and Chinese Judges: an Experiment. American Journal of Comparative Law.Google Scholar
London, K., & Nunez, N. (2000). The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors’ Propensity to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6), 932–9.Google Scholar
McLeod, A. M. (2012). Decarceration Courts: Possibilities and Perils of Shifting Criminal Law. Georgetown Law Journal 100(5), 1587–1674.Google Scholar
Ouss, A., & Peysakhovich, A. (2015). When Punishment Doesn’t Pay: Cold Glow and Decisions to Punish. The Journal of Law and Economics 58(3), 625–55.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1968). The Relativism of Absolute Judgments. Scientific American 219(6), 84–93.Google Scholar
Pepitone, A., & DiNubile, M. (1976). Contrast Effects in Judgments of Crime Severity and the Punishment of Criminal Violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(4), 448–59.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2017). Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 203–29.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2013). Altering Attention in Adjudication. UCLA Law Review, 60(6), 1586–1619.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2015). Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments: Distorted Damages and Skewed Sentences. Indiana Law Journal 90(2), 695–740.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2006). Inside the Bankruptcy Judge’s Mind. Boston University Law Review 86(5), 1227–66.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 163(1), 167–86.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Guthrie, C., & Wistrich, A. J. (2011). Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8, 72–98.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., & Jourden, F. (2003). The Cognitive Components of Punishment. Cornell Law Review 88(2), 457–85.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1997). Utility of Desert. Northwestern University Law Review 91(2), 453–99Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Spellman, B. A. (2005). Sentencing Decisions: Matching the Decisionmaker to the Decision Nature. Columbia Law Review 105, 1124–61.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, G., & Blanco, S. (2016). Contrast Effect on the Perception of the Severity of a Criminal Offence. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 26(1), 107–13.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2006). On the Supposed Jury–Dependence of Evidence Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155(1), 165–202.Google Scholar
Schauer, F., & Spellman, B. A. (2017). Analogy, Expertise, and Experience. University of Chicago Law Review 84(1), 249–68.Google Scholar
Schul, Y., & Goren, H. (1997). When Strong Evidence Has Less Impact than Weak Evidence: Bias, Adjustment, and Instructions to Ignore. Social Cognition 15(2), 133–55.Google Scholar
Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the Many Impacts of Inadmissible Testimony: Selective Compliance, Need for Cognition, and the Overcorrection Bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(10), 1368–77.Google Scholar
Spamann, H., & Klöhn, L. (2016). Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges. The Journal of Legal Studies 45(2), 255–80.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A. (2007). On the Supposed Expertise of Judges in Evaluating Evidence. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 156(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A., & Schauer, F. (2014). Law and Social Cognition. In Carlston, D. E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. Oxford University Press, pp. 829–50.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), 469–92.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law). Yale Law Journal 107(7), 2071–2153.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Ritov, I. (2002). Predictably Incoherent Judgments. Stanford Law Review 54(6), 1153–1215.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Schkade, D., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Do People Want Optimal Deterrence? The Journal of Legal Studies 29(1), 237–53.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Darley, J. M. (2000). Building Law-Abiding Society: Taking Public Views About Morality and the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities into Account When Formulating Substantive Law. Hofstra Law Review 28(3), 707–40.Google Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153(4), 1251–1345.Google Scholar
Zamir, E., & Medina, B. (2010). Law, Economics, and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zamir, E., & Teichman, D. (2018). Behavioral Law and Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimring, F. E. (1993). Drug Treatment as Criminal Sanction. University of Colorado Law Review 64(3), 809–26.Google Scholar

References

Aharoni, E., & Fridlund, A.J. (2011). Punishment Without Reason: Isolating Retribution in Lay Punishment of Criminal Offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law 18(4), 599–625.Google Scholar
Aharoni, E., & Fridlund, A. J. (2013). Moralistic Punishment as a Crude Social Insurance Plan. In Nadelhoffer, T. (ed.), The Future of Punishment (pp. 213–229). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aharoni, E., & Hoffman, M. B. (2020). Evolutionary Psychology, Jurisprudence, and Sentencing. In Shackelford, T. (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 221–242). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
American Law Institute. (2017). Model Penal Code. Philadelphia, PA. The American Law Institute. https://archive.org/stream/ModelPenalCode_ALI/MPCGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Punishment in Animal Societies. Nature 373(6511), 209–216.Google Scholar
Cushman, F. (2015). Punishment in Humans: From Intuitions to Institutions. Philosophy Compass 10(2), 117–133.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Delton, A. W., & Krasnow, M. M. (2017). The Psychology of Deterrence Explains Why Group Membership Matters for Third-Party Punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior 38(6), 734–743.Google Scholar
Duff, A. (2001). Punishment, Communication, and Community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-Party Punishment and Social Norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 25(2), 63–87.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic Punishment in Humans. Nature 415(6868), 137–140.Google Scholar
Fiddick, L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). No Interpretation Without Representation: the Role of Domain-Specific Representations and Inferences in the Wason Selection Task. Cognition 77(1), 1–79.Google Scholar
Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions Within Reason: the Strategic Role of the Emotions. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2014). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108(4), 1024–1052.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. B. (2014). The Punisher’s Brain: the Evolution of Judge and Jury. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, O. D. (2000). Time-Shifted Rationality and the Law of Law’s Leverage: Behavioral Economics Meets Behavioral Biology. Northwestern University Law Review 95, 1141–1205.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998). Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In Guyer’s, P. (ed.), Critical Essays on the Classics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. (Original work published in 1785.)Google Scholar
Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L., Pedersen, E. J., & Tooby, J. (2012). What Are Punishment and Reputation For? PLOS ONE 7(9), e45662.Google Scholar
Krasnow, M. M., Delton, A. W., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2016). Looking Under the Hood of Third-Party Punishment Reveals Design for Personal Benefit. Psychological Science 27(3), 405–418.Google Scholar
May, J. (2018). Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, E. J., McAuliffe, W. H., & McCullough, M. E. (2018). The Unresponsive Avenger: More Evidence that Disinterested Third Parties Do Not Punish Altruistically. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147(4), 514.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Evolutionary Psychology and Criminal Justice: A Recalibrational Theory of Punishment and Reconciliation. In Høgh-Oleson, H. (ed.), Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prendergast, A. (2017, April 27). The Strange Death of Darrell Havens, Prisoner Who Battled the System. Westword. www.westword.com/news/darrell-havens-paralyzed-prisoner-who-battled-the-system-has-died-9006082Google Scholar
Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Punitive Sentiment as an Anti-Free Rider Psychological Device. Evolution and Human Behavior 23(3), 203–231.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×