Social Cognition and Tort Law: The Roles of Basic Science and Social Engineering

  • Richard L. Wiener
  • Mark A. Small

Abstract

This chapter advocates a partnership between cognitive social psychology and the law of torts. The common subject matter of social psychology and tort doctrine is the manner in which human beings interact with each other. Psychology, however, takes a descriptive and inferential approach to the study of social behavior, and tort law formulates normative proscriptions to judge wrongful interactions. Insights may be gained about both enterprises if one is willing to view social psychology as basic science and tort law as social engineering. In this realist view (Manicas & Secord, 1983) of social psychology and the law, the researcher employs traditional experimental methods to study the underlying causal mechanisms that give rise to litigation.

Keywords

Social Cognition Social Judgment Social Memory Prima Facie Case Script Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Law Institute. (1965). Restatement of the law (second) torts (2nd Ed.). St. Paul, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N.H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1–101). New York: Accdemic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C.A., & Sechler, E.S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargh, J.A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Blanck, P.A., (1987). The process of field research in the courtroom: A descriptive analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bower, G.H. (1987). Commentary on mood and memory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 25(6), 443–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bower, G.H., & Cohen, P.R. (1982). Emotional influences in memory and thinking: Data and theory. In M.S. Clark & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 291–331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brewer, M.B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, W.F., & Nakamura, G.V. (1984). Nature and Function of Schemas. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 120–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Burgess I.S., Jones L.M., Robertson S.S., Radcliffe W.N. & Emerson E. (1981). The degree of control exerted by phobic and non-phobic verbal stimuli over the recognition behavior of phobic and non-phobic subjects. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 19, 233–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, J.S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, J.S., & Wiener, R.L. (1982). Cognitive social psychology in court and beyond. In A. Hastorf & A. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 213–253). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation, design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 414 N.E.2d 666, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166 (1980).Google Scholar
  18. Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325 (1981).Google Scholar
  19. Dobbs, D.B. (1985). Torts and compensation: Personal accountability and social responsibility for injury. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  20. Fazio, R.H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler, & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153 – 179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Fazio, R.H., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Powell, M.C., & Kardes, F.R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fazio, R.H., & Williams, C.J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiske, S.T. (1988). Compare and contrast: Brewer’s dual process model and Fiske et al.’s continuum model. In T.K. Srull & R.S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Foa, E.B., & McNally, R.J. (1986). Sensitivity to feared stimuli in obsessive-compulsives: A dichotic listening analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forgas, J.P., & Bower, H.B. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gabrielcik, A., & Fazio, R.H. (1984). Priming and frequency estimation: A strict test of the availability heuristic. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galambos, J.A., & Rips, L.J. (1982). Memory for routines. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 17, 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins, E.T., & Bargh, J.A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holcombe v. Whitaker, 294 Ala. 430, 318 So.2d 289 (1975).Google Scholar
  32. Isen, A.M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 179–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, J.T., & Drobny, J. (1985). Proximity biases in the attribution of civil liability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, 201–210. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalven, H. (1964). The dignity of the civil jury. Virginia Law Review, 50, 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan, M., & Kemmerick, G. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelley, H.H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morisstown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lempert, R.O. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let’s not rush to judgment. Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levi, A.S., & Pryor, J.B. (1987). Use of the availability heuristic in probability estimates of future events: The effects of imagining outcomes versus imagining reasons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Macleod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 95, 15 – 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Manicas, P.T. & Secord, P.F. (1983). Implications for psychology and the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCraney v. Flanagan, 47 N.C. App. 498, 267 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).Google Scholar
  44. McFatter, R.M. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1490–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Posner, R.A. (1981). The positive economic theory of tort law. Georgia Law Review, 15, 851–885.Google Scholar
  47. Rumelhart, D.E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Houts, A.C. (1986). Quasi-experimentation in a critical multiplist mode. In W. Trochim (Ed.). New directions for program evaluation: Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis (Vol. 31, pp. 29–47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Shaver, K.G. (1975). An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  50. Sherman, S.J., & Corty, E. (1984). Cognitive heuristics. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 189–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Sherman, S.J., Cialdini, R.B., Schwartzman, D.F., & Reynolds (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediation effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, S.E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E.T. Higgins, P. Herman, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (pp. 89–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Thomas v. Bedford, 389 So.2d 405, La. Ct. App. (1980).Google Scholar
  54. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2nd Cir. 1947). 454Google Scholar
  56. Weiner, B. (1980). Human Motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  57. Whitley v. Andersen, 37 Colo. App. 486, 551 P.2d 1083 (1976).Google Scholar
  58. Wiener, R.L. (1988, August). The experimentalist and realist view of science from the viewpoint of program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  59. Wiener, R.L., Wiener, A.T.F., & Grisso, T. (1989). Empathy and biased assimilation of testimonies in cases of alleged rape. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiener, R.L. & Rhinehart, N. (1986). Psychological causality in the attribution of responsibility for rape. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 14, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson v. Sibert, 535 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1975).Google Scholar
  62. Wyer, R.S., & Carlston, D.E. (1979). Social cog-d nition, inference, and attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Wyer, R.S., & Srull, T.K. (1980). The processing it of social stimulus information: A conceptuale integration. In R. Hastie, T.M. Ostrom, E.B. il Ebbessen, R.S. Wyer, D.L. Hamilton, & D.E. Carlston (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive). basis of social perception (pp. 227–300).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Wiener
  • Mark A. Small

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations