Motivated cognition in legal judgments-An analytic review

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volumn 9, Issue , 2013, Pages 307-325

  Sood, Avani Mehta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

legal decision making; legal judgments; motivated cognition; motivated reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887456639     PISSN: 15503585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134023     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alicke MD. 1992. Culpable causation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63(3):368-78
2. Alicke MD. 2000. Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychol. Bull. 126(4):556-74
3. Balcetis E, Dunning D. 2006. See what you want to see: motivational influences on visual perception. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91(4):612-25
4. Bellin J. 2011. Crime-severity distinctions and the Fourth Amendment: reassessing reasonableness in a changing world. Iowa Law Rev. 97(1):1-48
5. Bersoff DM. 1999. Why good people sometimes do bad things: motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25(1):28-39
6. Boiney LG, Kennedy J, Nye P. 1997. Instrumental bias in motivated reasoning: more when more is needed. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 72(1):1-24
7. Braman E. 2006. Reasoning on the threshold: testing the separability of preferences in legal decision making. J. Polit. 68(2):308-21
8. Braman E, Nelson TE. 2007. Mechanism of motivated reasoning Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51(4):940-56
9. Carlson KA, Russo JE. 2001. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. J. Exp. Psychol. : Appl. 7(2): 91-103
10. Cohen GL, Sherman DK, Bastardi A, Hsu L, McGoey M, et al. 2007. Bridging the partisan divide: selfaffirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93(3):415-30
11. Ditto PH, Lopez DF. 1992. Motivated skepticism: use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63(4):568-84
12. Dripps D. 2001. The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 38:1-46
13. Fischle M. 2000. Mass response to the Lewinsky scandal: motivated reasoning or Bayesian updating Polit. Psychol. 21(1):135-59
14. Furgeson JR, Babcock L, Shane PM. 2008. Do a law's policy implications affect beliefs about its constitutionality An experimental test. Law Hum. Behav. 32(3):219-27
15. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. 2001. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev. 86(4):777-829
16. Harcourt BE. 1999. The collapse of the harm principle. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 90(1):109-94
17. Hart HLA. 1963. Law, Liberty, and Morality. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
18. Jain SP, Maheswaran D. 2000. Motivated reasoning: a depth-of-processing perspective. J. Consum. Res. 26(4):358-71
19. Kahan DM. 2010. Culture, cognition, and consent: who perceives what, and why, in acquaintance-rape cases. U. Pa. Law Rev. 158(3):729-813
20. KahanDM. 2011. Neutral principles, motivated cognition, and some problems for constitutional law. Harvard Law Rev. 125(1):1-77
21. Kahan DM, Braman D. 2008. The self-defensive cognition of self-defense. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 45(1):1-65
22. Kahan DM, Hoffman DA, Braman D. 2009. Whose eyes are you going to believe Scott v. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Rev. 122(3):837-906
23. KahanDM, Hoffman DA, Braman D, EvansD, Rachlinski JJ. 2012. "They saw a protest": cognitive illiberalism and the speech-conduct distinction. Stanford Law Rev. 64(4):851-906
24. Kamisar Y. 1987. "Comparative reprehensibility" and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Mich. Law Rev. 86(1):1-50
25. Kang J, Bennett M, Carbado D, Casey P, Dasgupta N, et al. 2012. Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Rev. 59(5):1124-86
26. Kaplan J. 1974. The limits of the exclusionary rule. Stanford Law Rev. 26(5):1027-55
27. Kerr NL, MacCoun RJ, Kramer GP. 1996. Bias in judgment: comparing individuals and groups. Psychol. Rev. 103(4):687-719
28. Klein WM, Kunda Z. 1992. Motivated person perception: constructing justifications for desired beliefs. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28(2):145-68
29. Kunda Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108(3):480-98
30. Landsman S, Rakos RF. 1994. A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behav. Sci. Law 12(2):113-26
31. Lord CG, Ross L, LepperMR. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37(11):2098-109
32. MacCoun RJ. 1998. Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:259-87
33. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961) Mill JS. 1859. On Liberty. London: JohnW. Parker & Son
34. Miron AM, Branscombe NR, Biernat M. 2010. Motivated shifting of justice standards. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36(6):768-79
35. Myers DG, Kaplan MF. 1976. Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2(1):63-66
36. Nadler J. 2012. Blaming as a social process: the influence of character and moral emotion on blame. Law Contemp. Probl. 75(2):1-31
37. Nadler J, McDonnell M-H. 2012. Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Rev. 97(2):255-304
38. Newton v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Nev. 1987)
39. Newton v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 930 F. 2d 662 (9th Cir. 1990)
40. Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431 (1984)
41. Petty RE, Wegener DT, White PH. 1998. Flexible correction processes in social judgment: implications for persuasion. Soc. Cogn. 16(1):93-113
42. Pronin E. 2008. How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science 320(5880):1177-80
43. Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J. 1987. Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: a biased hypothesis-testing model. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, ed. L. Berkowitz, pp. 297-340. San Diego, CA: Academic
44. Redding RE, Reppucci D. 1999. Effects of lawyers' socio-political attitudes on their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Law Hum. Behav. 23(1):31-54
45. Redlawsk DP. 2002. Hot cognition or cool consideration Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. J. Polit. 64(4):1021-44
46. Robinson PH, Darley JM. 1997. The utility of desert. Northw. Univ. Law Rev. 91(2):453-99
47. Simon D. 2004. A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 71(2):511-86
48. Simon D, Pham LB, Le QA, Holyoak KJ. 2001. The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. : Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27(5):1250-60
49. Sommers SR. 2008. Beyond information exchange: new perspectives on the benefits of racial diversity for group performance. Res. Manag. Groups Teams. 11:195-220
50. Sood AM, Darley JM. 2012. The plasticity of harm in the service of criminalization goals. Calif. Law Rev. 100(5):1313-58
51. Taber CS, Cann D, Kucsova S. 2009. The motivated processing of political arguments. Polit. Behav. 31(2):137-55
52. Taber CS, Lodge M. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50(3):755-69
53. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989).
54. Tyler T. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
55. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914)
56. Westen D, Blagov PS, Harenski K, Kilts C, Hamann S. 2006. Neural bases of motivated reasoning: an fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U. S. presidential election. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18(11):1947-58
57. Wiener RL, Habert K, Shkodriani G, Staebler C. 1991. The social psychology of jury nullification: predicting when jurors disobey the law. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21(17):1379-401
58. Wilson TD, Brekke N. 1994. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychol. Bull. 116(1):117-42
59. Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ. 2005. Can judges ignore inadmissible information The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 153(4):1251-345