Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 385–415 | Cite as

The apolitical lawyer: experimental evidence of a framing effect

  • Michal OvádekEmail author
Article

Abstract

Behavioural law and economics has established a burgeoning research agenda investigating the impact of bias and heuristics on legal decision-making. One of the most important behavioural contributions concerns the impact of framing on choice. The present article expands this line of scholarship by developing a novel hypothesis under which lawyers’ attachment to objectivity and neutrality is assumed to militate against frames challenging the profession’s underlying norms. More specifically, the “apolitical hypothesis” expects the attachment of legally irrelevant political motivation to legal arguments to decrease their attractiveness. The hypothesis is tested in an experimental setting accounting for a varying degree of legal indeterminacy in the domain of European Union law. The experimental results show support for the hypothesis: a political frame made law students 12–24% more likely to select the “apolitical” legal option.

Keywords

Legal experiments Behavioural law and economics Framing Ambiguity European Union law 

JEL Classification

K49 C92 D91 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from European Research Council Grant No. 638154 (EUTHORITY).

References

  1. Baird, V. A. (2001). Building institutional legitimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 333–354.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, V. A., & Gangl, A. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of supreme court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27, 597–614.Google Scholar
  3. Barents, R. (1993). The internal market unlimited: Some observations on the legal basis of community legislation. Common Market Law Review, 30, 85–109.Google Scholar
  4. Berukstiene, D. (2016). Legal discourse reconsidered: Genres of legal texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, 28, 89–117.Google Scholar
  5. Bless, H., Betsch, T., & Franzen, A. (1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cueson solutions to the ‘asian disease’ problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 287–291.Google Scholar
  6. Breda, V. (2017). The grammar of bias: Judicial impartiality in european legal systems. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 30, 245–260.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, G. (1974). The supreme court and myth: An empirical investigation. Law and Society Review, 8, 385–419.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. M, de S.-O.-L’. E. Lasser. (2004). Judicial deliberations: A comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Vreese, C. H. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issueinterpretation and frame salience. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 36–52.Google Scholar
  12. Druckman, J., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 728–744.Google Scholar
  13. Druckman, J. N. (2001). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 17, 62–82.Google Scholar
  14. Dyevre, A., Wijtvliet, W., & Lampach, N. (2019). The future of European legal scholarship: Empirical jurisprudence. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 26, 348–371.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenberg, T., & Hans, V. P. (2009). Taking a stand on taking the stand: The effect of a prior criminal record on the decision to testify and on trial outcomes. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1353–1390.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2011). Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court? Law and Society Review, 45, 195–219.Google Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer, G., & Engel, C. (Eds.). (2006). Heuristics and the law. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gillman, H. (2001). What’s law got to do with it? judicial behavioralists test the “legal model” of judicial decision making. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(2), 465–504.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–78.Google Scholar
  20. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of powercalculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55, 1–6.Google Scholar
  23. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550.Google Scholar
  24. Jullien, D. (2016). All frames created equal are not identical: On the structure of kahneman and tversky’s framing effects. Oeconomia, 6, 265–291.Google Scholar
  25. Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics: Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahan, D. M. (2011). Neutral principles, motivated cognition, and some problems for constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 125, 1–77.Google Scholar
  27. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.Google Scholar
  28. Kelsen, H. (1934). Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Vienna: Franz Deuticke Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Keren, G. (Ed.). (2011). Perspectives on framing. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Klamert, M. (2010). Conflicts of legal basis: No legality and no basis but a bright future under the lisbon treaty? European Law Review, 35, 497–515.Google Scholar
  31. Korobkin, R. B., & Ulen, T. S. (2000). Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. California Law Review, 88(4), 1051–1144.Google Scholar
  32. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.Google Scholar
  33. Mackie, J. (1977). The third theory of law. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7, 3–16.Google Scholar
  34. Montesquieu, B. (1748). De l'esprit des lois. Geneva: Barrillot et fils.Google Scholar
  35. Rachlinski, J. J. (2011). The psychological foundations of behavioral law and economics. University of Illinois Law Review, 2011(5), 1675–1696.Google Scholar
  36. Rachlinski, J. J., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 695–739.Google Scholar
  37. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A socialcognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 26–48.Google Scholar
  38. Robbennolt, J. K. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373.Google Scholar
  39. Schauer, F. (2010). Is there a psychology of judging? In Klein & Mitchell (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Scheb, J. M., & Lyons, W. (2000). The myth of legality and public evaluation of the supreme court. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 928–940.Google Scholar
  41. Scheingold, S. A. (2004). The politics of rights: Lawyers, public policy, and political change (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sheffrin, S. M. (2017). Behavioral law and economics is not just a refinement of law and economics. Oeconomia, 7(3), 331–352.Google Scholar
  43. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467–94.Google Scholar
  44. Shklar, J. N. (1964). Legalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Siems, M. M., & Síthigh, D. M. (2012). Mapping legal research. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71, 651–676.Google Scholar
  46. 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, 469–492.Google Scholar
  47. Tanford, S., & Cox, M. (1988). The effects of impeachment evidence and limiting instructions on individual and group decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477–497.Google Scholar
  48. Teichman, D., & Zamir, E. (2014). Judicial decision-making: A behavioral perspective. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 664–702). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  50. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.Google Scholar
  51. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–279.Google Scholar
  52. Varo, A. E., & Hughes, B. (2002). Legal translation explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48.Google Scholar
  54. 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, 1251–1345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Legal Theory and Empirical Jurisprudence, Faculty of LawKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations