Cited by 66Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDeception detection and forensic psychology

From moral to legal judgment: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics

Open access
Schleim, Stephan, Spranger, Tade M., Erk, Susanne, Walter, Henrik·2011·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

Various kinds of normative judgments are an integral part of everyday life. We extended the scrutiny of social cognitive neuroscience into the domain of legal decisions, investigating two groups, lawyers and other academics, during moral and legal decision-making. While we found activation of brain areas comprising the so-called 'moral brain' in both conditions, there was stronger activation in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and middle temporal gyrus particularly when subjects made legal decisions, suggesting that these were made in respect to more explicit rules and demanded more complex semantic processing. Comparing both groups, our data show that behaviorally lawyers conceived themselves as emotionally less involved during normative decision-making in general. A group × condition interaction in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex suggests a modulation of normative decision-making by attention based on subjects' normative expertise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/scan/nsq010

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • People can view relatively mundane stimuli as having moral value, and construal can change evaluation.

    “These studies not only suggest that people can view relatively mundane stimuli as having moral value, but that construal can change the evaluation [46].”

    From The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions (2012) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Experimental design section says participants judged the same target stories from moral or legal perspectives, and the Behavioral results section reports different endorsement rates across those conditions. This supports the claim that framing changed evaluation. It does not establish that relatively mundane stimuli were viewed as having moral value: the everyday-life stories were neutral controls, separate from the moral and legal target stories. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Blair, J. (2008). Cognitive neuroscience of psychopathy. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 79(8), 968-978.
  2. Schleim, S., Spranger, T., Urbach, H., Walter, H. (2007). Accidental findings in the imaging brain researchEmpirical, legal and ethical aspects. Nervenheilkunde, 26(11), 1041-5.
  3. Talairach, J., Tournoux, P. (1988). Coplanar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain. Stuttgart: Thieme Verlag.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schleim, S., Spranger, T. M., Erk, S., & Walter, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2010-03-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
48-57
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2143593174
Cited by
66
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Volkswagen Foundation (80 777)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GP0804)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
moral judgment, legal judgment, normative decision making, lawyers, legal expertise, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, middle temporal gyrus, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, emotional engagement, semantic processing, attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cues, Decision Making, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Morals, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Social Behavior, Case-Control Studies, Lawyers

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