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-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:05:20.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Law and the Cognitive Science of Ordinary Concepts

from I - Metatheory and Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2021

By
Kevin Tobia
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

This chapter introduces the ‘folk law thesis’, the claim that ordinary concepts are at the heart of central legal concepts. It presents recent empirical work suggesting that a number of subtle and surprising features of ordinary concepts are also shared by the corresponding legal concept – including features of INTENT, KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT, REASONABLENESS, and CAUSATION. This approach to law opens up a range of new and promising empirical research questions: For each legal concept, what are the features of the corresponding ordinary concept – and what, if any, are the distinctive features of that legal concept? It also opens up an equally vast range of new normative questions: For each feature of the relevant ordinary concept, we can – and should – ask a corresponding normative question: should the legal concept have this or that feature? In this way, the cognitive science of ordinary concepts is not only a useful part of legal psychology, but also a critical part of legal theory and jurisprudence.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Mind
A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences
 , pp. 86 - 96
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

Bear, A., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality: Part Descriptive, Part Prescriptive. Cognition 167, 25–37.Google Scholar
Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment. Cognition 108(2), 353–80.Google Scholar
Donelson, R., & Hannikainen, I. (in press). Fuller and the Folk: The Inner Morality of Law Revisited. In Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Earp, B., Latham, S. R. & Tobia, K. (in press). Personal Transformation and Advance Directives: An Experimental Bioethics Approach. American Journal of Bioethics.Google Scholar
Friedman, O., & Neary, K. (2008). First Possession Beyond the Law: Adults’ and Young Children’s Intuitions About Ownership. Tulsa Law Review 83, 679.Google Scholar
Greene, E. J., & Darley, J. M. (1998). Effects of Necessary, Sufficient, and Indirect Causation on Judgments of Criminal Liability. Law and Human Behavior 22(4), 429–51.Google Scholar
Grossmann, I., Eibach, R., Koyama, J., & Sahi, Q. (2020). Folk Standards of Sound Judgment: Rationality Versus Reasonableness. Science Advances 6.Google Scholar
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2007). Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases. Cornell Law Review 93, 1–44.Google Scholar
Hans, V. (1992). Jury Decision Making. In Kagehiro, Dorothy K. & Laufer, William S. (eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Law. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 56–76.Google Scholar
Holmes, O. W. H. (1881). The Common Law. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hurd, H. M. (1996). The Moral Magic of Consent. Legal Theory 2, 121–46.Google Scholar
Jaeger, C. B. (2021). The Empirical Reasonable Person. Alabama Law Review 72.Google Scholar
Jaeger, C. B., Levin, D. T., & Porter, E. (2017). Justice Is (Change) Blind: Applying Research on Visual Metacognition in Legal Settings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 23(2), 259–79.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D., Evans, D., et al. (2015). Ideology or Situation Sense: An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164, 349–439.Google Scholar
Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, . (2017). Mens Rea Ascription, Expertise and Outcome Effects: Professional Judges Surveyed. Cognition 169, 139–46.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language. Analysis 63, 190–94.Google Scholar
Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (in press). Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review.Google Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., Phillips, J., Gerstenberg, T. et al. (2015). Causal Superseding. Cognition 137, 196–209.Google Scholar
Lagnado, D. A., & Gerstenberg, T. (2017). Causation in Legal and Moral Reasoning. In Waldmann, M. R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 565–601.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. A. (2019). Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation. Indiana Law Journal 94, 957–1029.Google Scholar
Malle, B. F., & Nelson, S. E. (2003). Judging Mens Rea: The Tension Between Folk Concepts and Legal Concepts of Intentionality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 21(5), 563–80.Google Scholar
Miller, A. D., & Perry, R. (2012). The Reasonable Person. New York University Law Review 87, 323–92.Google Scholar
Mott, C. (2018). Statutes of Limitations and Personal Identity. 2 Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy 243.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2001). Informed Consent and Genetic Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32, 689–704.Google Scholar
Prosser, W. L. (1986). Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2008). Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges. Notre Dame Law Review 84, 1195–1246.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shen, F. X., Hoffman, M. B., Jones, O. D., et al. (2011). Sorting Guilty Minds. New York University Law Review 86, 1306–60.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2002). Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame. Brooklyn Law Review 68, 1003–29.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2005). Where Does Blaming Come From. Brooklyn Law Review 71, 939–1029.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2009). Blame, Praise, and the Structure of Legal Rules. Brooklyn Law Review 75, 517–43.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M., & Darley, J. M. (2001). Causation, Contribution, and Legal Liability: An Empirical Study. Law and Contemporary Problems 64(4), 265–98.Google Scholar
Solan, L., Rosenblatt, T., & Osherson, D. (2008). False Consensus Bias in Contract Interpretation. Columbia Law Review 108, 203–29.Google Scholar
Sommers, R. (in press). Commonsense Consent. Yale Law Journal.Google Scholar
Sommers, R., & Bohns, V. K. (2018). The Voluntariness of Voluntary Consent: Consent Searches and the Psychology of Compliance. Yale Law Journal, 129, 2232–2324.Google Scholar
Sommers, R., & Furth-Matzkin, M. (2019). Consumer Psychology and the Problem of Fine Print Fraud. Stanford Law Review 72, 503–60.Google Scholar
Stern, S. (2017). R v. Jones (1703). In Handler, P., Mares, H. & Williams, I. (eds.), Landmark Cases in Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart, 59–79.Google Scholar
Struchiner, N., Hannikainen, I. R., & de Almeida, G. (in press). An Experimental Guide to Vehicles in the Park. Judgment and Decision Making.Google Scholar
Sytsma, J., Bluhm, R., Willemsen, P., & Reuter, K. (in press). Causal Attributions and Corpus Analysis. In Fisher, E. (ed.), Methodological Advances in Experimental Philosophy. London:Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P. (2018). How People Judge What Is Reasonable. Alabama Law Review 70, 293–360.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P. (in press). Testing Ordinary Meaning. Harvard Law Review 134.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P., & Mikhail, J. (2021). Two Types of Empirical Textualism. Brooklyn Law Review.Google Scholar
Tobia, K. P., Nielsen, A., & Stremitzer, A. (2021). When Does Physician Use of AI Increase Liability? The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. (1994). Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.Google Scholar
Vilares, I., Wesley, M., Ahn, W., et al. (2017). Predicting the Knowledge–Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 3222–7.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
×