CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLegal processes and jurisprudence

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations

Flanagan, Brian, de Almeida, Guilherme F. C. F., Struchiner, Noel, Hannikainen, Ivar R.·2023·Law and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1037/lhb0000527
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how basic competencies in moral reasoning influence the application of private, institutional, and legal rules. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that moral appraisals, implicating both outcome-based and mental state reasoning, would shape participants' interpretation of rules and statutes-and asked whether these effects arise differentially under intuitive and reflective reasoning conditions. METHOD: In six vignette-based experiments (total N = 2,473; 293 university law students [67% women; age bracket mode: 18-22 years] and 2,180 online workers [60% women; mean age = 31.9 years]), participants considered a wide range of written rules and laws and determined whether a protagonist had violated the rule in question. We manipulated morally relevant aspects of each incident-including the valence of the rule's purpose (Study 1) and of the outcomes that ensued (Studies 2 and 3), as well as the protagonist's accompanying mental state (Studies 5 and 6). In two studies, we simultaneously varied whether participants decided under time pressure or following a forced delay (Studies 4 and 6). RESULTS: Moral appraisals of the rule's purpose, the agent's extraneous blameworthiness, and the agent's epistemic state impacted legal determinations and helped to explain participants' departure from rules' literal interpretation. Counter-literal verdicts were stronger under time pressure and were weakened by the opportunity to reflect. CONCLUSIONS: Under intuitive reasoning conditions, legal determinations draw on core competencies in moral cognition, such as outcome-based and mental state reasoning. In turn, cognitive reflection dampens these effects on statutory interpretation, allowing text to play a more influential role. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/lhb0000527

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Their results showed that ordinary judgments of rule violation are much more sensitive to morally good than morally bad purposes, which suggests an influence of moral appraisals over the folk concept of rule.

    “Their results showed that ordinary judgments of rule violation are much more sensitive to morally good than morally bad purposes, which suggests an influence of moral appraisals over the folk concept of rule.”

    From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Flanagan et al., 2023

  • Flanagan and colleagues (2023) manipulated whether the rule's text and intended goal were violated, and whether the intended goal was morally good or bad.

    “To find out precisely what goes into the purpose or spirit of the law, Flanagan and colleagues (2023) manipulated not only whether the rule's text and the rule's intended goal were violated, but also whether the intended goal was morally good or morally bad (their Study 1).”

    From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Flanagan et al., 2023

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Flanagan, B., de Almeida, G. F. C. F., Struchiner, N., & Hannikainen, I. R.
Affiliations
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
  • Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
ORCID
Venue
Law and Human Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2023-04
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
367-383
ISSN
  • 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-661X
DOI
10.1037/lhb0000527
OpenAlex
W4365447337
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Maynooth University
  • Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PID2020-119791RA-I00)
  • National Council of Scientific and Technological Development of Brazil (309735/2019-0)
  • Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support Foundation (E-26/201.071/2021)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (001)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
moral reasoning, legal judgment, statutory interpretation, intuitive thinking, cognitive reflection, mental state reasoning, culpability, epistemic states, time pressure, law students
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Problem Solving, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review