Alfano, Mark, Loeb, Don & Plakias, Alexandra (2018). Experimental Moral Philosophy, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar

Alicke, Mark. (1992). Culpable Causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3): 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almeida, Guilherme, Hannikainen, Ivar, Prochownik, Karolina & Tobia, Kevin. (2025). Experimental Jurisprudence, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, Edward N. & Nodelman, Uri (eds.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar

Bilz, Kenworthy & Darley, John M.. (2004). What’s Wrong with Harmless Theories of Punishment. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79: 1215.Google Scholar

Bourget, David & Chalmers, David J.. (2014). What Do Philosophers Believe? Philosophical Studies, 170: 465–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buckwalter, Wesley & Sytsma, Justin. (2016). A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

DePaul, Michael R. & Ramsey, William (eds.). (1998). Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Dickson, Julie. (2022). Elucidating Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkel, Norman J. (1995). Commonsense Justice: Jurors’ Notions of the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ginther, Matthew R., Shen, Francis X., Bonnie, Richard J., Hoffman, Morris B., Jones, Owen D., Marois, Rene & Simons, Kenneth W.. (2014). The Language of Mens Rea. Vanderbilt Law Review, 67: 1327.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. & Honoré, Tony. (1959). Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kneer, Markus & Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha. (2017). Mens Rea Ascription, Expertise and Outcome Effects: Professional Judges Surveyed. Cognition, 169: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Knobe, Joshua, Buckwalter, Wesley, Nichols, Shaun, Sarkissian, Hagop, & Sommers, Tammlar. (2012). Experimental Philosophy. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 81–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Langlinais, Alex & Leiter, Brian. (2016). The Methodology of Legal Philosophy, in Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology, Cappelen, Herman, Gendler, Tamar Szabo & Hawthorne, John (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Malle, Bertram F. & Nelson, Sarah E.. (2003). Judging Mens Rea: The Tension between Folk Concepts and Legal Concepts of Intentionality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(5): 563–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mikhail, John. (2007). Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence and the Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(4): 143–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Miotto, Lucas, Almeida, Guilherme F. C. F. & Struchiner, Noel. (2023). Law, Coercion and Folk Intuitions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 43: 97–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nichols, Shaun & Knobe, Joshua. (2007). Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions. Nous, 41(4): 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nye, Hillary. (2017). A Critique of the Concept-Nature Nexus in Joseph Raz’s Methodology. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 37: 48–74.Google Scholar

Prochownik, Karolina M. (2021). The Experimental Philosophy of Law: New Ways, Old Questions, and How Not to Get Lost. Philosophy Compass, 16: e12791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, Paul H. & Darley, John M.. (1995). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. & Darley, John M.. (2001). Causation, Contribution, and Legal Liability: An Empirical Study. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64(4): 265–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solum, Lawrence B. (2014). The Positive Foundations of Formalism: False Necessity and American Legal Realism. Harvard Law Review, 127: 2464–2497.Google Scholar

Sommers, Roseanna. (2021). Experimental Jurisprudence. Science, 373: 394–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stich, Stephen & Tobia, Kevin. (2016). Experimental Philosophy and the Philosophical Tradition, in A Companion to Experimental Philosophical, Sytsma, Justin & Buckwalter, Wesley (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tobia, Kevin. (2019). Essays in Experimental Jurisprudence. Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar

Tobia, Kevin. (2022). Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review, 89: 735–802.Google Scholar

Vilares, Iris, Wesley, Michael J., Ahn, Woo-Young, Bonnie, Richard J., Hoffman, Morris, Jones, Owen D., Morse, Stephen J., Yaffe, Gideon, Lohrenz, Terry & Montague, P. Read. (2017). Predicting the Knowledge–Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(12): 3222–3227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2017–2018, Standard 303. Curriculum, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2017-2018ABAStandardsforApprovalofLawSchools/2017_2018_standards_chapter3.authcheckdam.pdf.Google Scholar

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347, 509–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alicke, M. D., & Guenther, C. L. (2011). Self-enhancement and self-protection in social judgment. In Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 174–191). Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Alicke, M. D., Mandel, D. R., Hilton, D. J., Gerstenberg, T., & Lagnado, D. A. (2015). Causal conceptions in social explanation and moral evaluation: A historical tour. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 790–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alicke, M. D., & Weigel, S. H. (2021). The reasonable person standard: Psychological and legal perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Intentional harms are worse, even when they’re not. Psychological Science, 24, 1755–1762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Antonio, M. E. (2006). Arbitrariness and the death penalty: How the defendant’s appearance during trial influences capital jurors’ punishment decision. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.673CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ask, K., & Landström, S. (2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Atuahene, B. (2014). We want what’s ours: Learning from South Africa’s land restitution program. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ayres, I., & Schwartz, A. (2014). The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanford Law Review, 66, 545–610.Google Scholar

Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337–1343.Google Scholar

Bailis, D. S., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakos, Y., Marotta-Wurgler, F., & Trossen, D. R. (2014). Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard-form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bandes, S. A. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 361–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bandes, S. A. (2014). Remorse, demeanor, and the consequences of misinterpretation. Journal of Law, Religion and State, 3(2), 170–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/22124810-00302004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bandes, S. A., & Salerno, J. M. (2014). Emotion, proof and prejudice: The cognitive science of gruesome photos and victim impact statements. Arizona State Law Journal, 46, 1003.Google Scholar

Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaton, A., Cook, M., Kavanagh, M., & Herrington, C. (2000). The psychological impact of burglary. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008410830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bellin, J. (2014). The case for eHearsay. Fordham Law Review, 83, 1317.Google Scholar

Ben-Shahar, O. & Schneider, C. (2011). The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 159, 647–749.Google Scholar

Binder, G., & Biondolillo, M. (2023). Re-tribute: Reconsidering the moral psychology of culpability and desert. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 56, 139.Google Scholar

Blumenthal, J. A. (2009). To be human: A psychological perspective on property law. Tulane Law Review, 83, 609.Google Scholar

Bollingmo, G. C., Wessel, E. O., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2008). Credibility of the emotional witness: A study of ratings by police investigators. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701368412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowers, W. J., Steiner, B. D., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in Black and White: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition symposium: Race crime and the constitution. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 171–275.Google Scholar

Bregant, J., Robbennolt, J. K., & Winship, V. (2021). Perceptions of settlement. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 27, 93.Google Scholar

Brown, T. R. (2021). The content of our character. Penn State Law Review, 126(1), 1–58.Google Scholar

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).Google Scholar

Burch, E. C. (2019). Mass tort deals: Backroom bargaining in multidistrict litigation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burch, E. C., & Williams, M. S. (2022). Perceptions of justice in multidistrict litigation: Voices from the crowd. Cornell Law Review, 107, 1835–1925.Google Scholar

Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Caruso, E. M., Burns, Z. C., & Converse, B. A. (2016). Slow motion increases perceived intent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 9250–9255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chamallas, M., & Wriggins, J. B. (2010). The measure of injury: Race, gender, and tort law. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-53.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, J. (1999). Advising clients to apologize. Southern California Law Review, 72, 1009–1069.Google Scholar

Daniels, S., & Martin, J. (2000). The impact that it has had is between people’s ears: Tort reform, mass culture, and plaintiffs’ lawyers. DePaul Law Review, 50, 453–496.Google Scholar

Darley, J. M., & Huff, C. W. (1990). Heightened damage assessment as a result of the intentionality of the damage-causing act. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2014). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 114–126.Google ScholarPubMed

Duncan, M. G. (2002). So young and so untender: Remorseless children and the expectations of the law. Columbia Law Review, 102, 1469–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edkins, V. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2019). (Eds.). A system of pleas: Social science’s contribution to the real legal system. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edkins, V. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2004). The psychology of entrapment. In Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 215–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_10Google Scholar

Eigen, Z. J. (2012). When and why individuals obey contracts: Experimental evidence of consent, compliance, promise, and performance. The Journal of Legal Studies, 41(1), 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eisenberg, M. (1995). The limits of cognition and the limits of contract. Stanford Law Review, 47, 211–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eldred, T. (2016). Insights from psychology: Teaching behavioral legal ethics as a core element of professional psychology. Michigan State Law Review, 2016, 777–815.Google Scholar

Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn077Google Scholar

Engel, D. M. (1984). The oven bird’s song: Insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law & Society Review, 18, 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, Y., & Teichman, D. (2011). Are all contractual obligations created equal? Georgetown Law Journal, 100, 5–52.Google Scholar

Friedman, O. (2008). First possession: An assumption guiding inferences about who owns what. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Furth-Matzkin, M., & Sommers, R. (2020). Consumer psychology and the problem of fine-print fraud. Stanford Law Review, 72, 503–560.Google Scholar

Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, B. L. (2020). Wrongful convictions. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gehlbach, H., & Mu, N. (2023). How we understand others: A theory of how social perspective taking unfolds. Review of General Psychology, 27, 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231152595CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Why the brain talks to itself: Sources of error in emotional prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gilbert, E., Tenney, E. R., Holland, C., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Counterfactuals, control, and causation: Why knowledgeable people get blamed more. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2008). The sting of intentional pain. Psychological Science, 19, 1260–1262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Greene, E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Determining damages: The psychology of jury awards. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grey, B. J. (2015). The future of emotional harm. Fordham Law Review, 83, 2605–2653.Google Scholar

Guglielmo, S., & Malle, B. F. (2010). Can unintended side effects be intentional? Resolving a controversy over intentionality and morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1635–1647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02414.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hans, V. P. (2000). Business on trial: The civil jury and corporate responsibility. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P. (2014). What’s it worth? Jury damage awards as community judgments. William and Mary Law Review, 55, 935–969.Google Scholar

Hans, V. P., Reed, K., Reyna, V. F., Garavito, D., & Helm, R. K. (2022). Guiding jurors’ damage award decisions: Experimental investigations of approaches based on theory and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28, 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hans, V. P., & Reyna, V. F. (2011). To dollars from sense: Qualitative to quantitative translation in jury damage awards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., Nguyen, A. P., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). Short- and long-term effects of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(42), 11103–11108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701544114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heath, W. P. (2009). Arresting and convicting the innocent: The potential role of an “inappropriate” emotional display in the accused. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.864CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hensler, D. H. (2013). The socio-economics of mass torts: What we know, don’t know, and should know. In Arlen, J. (Ed.), Research handbook on the economics of torts (pp. 279–304). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoetger, L. A., Devine, D. J., Brank, E. M., Drew, R. M., & Rees, R. (2022). The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hoffman, D. A. (2016). From promise to form: How contracting online changes consumers. New York University Law Review, 91, 1595–1650.Google Scholar

Hollander-Blumoff, R. (2010). Just negotiation. Washington University Law Review, 88, 381–432.Google Scholar

Illinois Forms Jury Instructions § 110.01.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, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229304CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49–86.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6Google ScholarPubMed

Kaufmann, G., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Overskeid, G., & Magnussen, S. (2003). The importance of being earnest: Displayed emotions and witness credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.842CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).Google Scholar

Kennedy, J. P., & Benson, M. L. (2016). Emotional reactions to employee theft and the managerial dilemmas small business owners face. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koehler, J. J., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 90, 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lench, H. C., Safer, M. A., & Levine, L. J. (2011). Focalism and the underestimation of future emotion: When it’s worse than imagined. Emotion, 11(2), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lens, K. M. E., van Doorn, J., Pemberton, A., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). You shouldn’t feel that way! Extending the emotional victim effect through the mediating role of expectancy violation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.777962CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levine, L. J., Lench, H. C., Karnaze, M. M., & Carlson, S. J. (2018). Bias in predicted and remembered emotion. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (2014). Behavioral law and economics of property law: Achievements and challenges. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 377–404). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lim, A., Young, R. L., & Brewer, N. (2022). Autistic adults may be erroneously perceived as deceptive and lacking credibility. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04963-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Macleod, J. A. (2023). Evidence law’s blind spots. Iowa Law Review, 109, 189–239.Google Scholar

Maguire, M. (1980). The impact of burglary upon victims. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., & Cusimano, C. (2015). Sacrifice one for the good of many?: People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interactions, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcus, P. (2015). The entrapment defense. LexisNexis.Google Scholar

Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000). Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal-injury damages awards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.6.2.91Google ScholarPubMed

McGraw, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P. E., & Kristel, O. V. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/376805CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, D. A., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment & Decision Making, 5, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mott, N. L., Hans, V. P., & Simpson, L. (2000). What’s half a lung worth? Civil jurors’ accounts of their award decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 24(4), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005540229224CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. Clark Boardman.Google Scholar

Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nadler, J. (2018). The social psychology of property: Looking beyond market exchange. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113627CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nadler, J. & Diamond, S. S. (2008). Eminent domain and the psychology of property rights: Proposed use, subjective attachment, and taker identity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(4), 713–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nadler, J., Diamond, S. S., & Patton, M. M. (2008). Government takings of private property. In Persily, N., Citrin, J., & Egan, P. J (Eds.), Public opinion and constitutional controversy (pp. 287–310). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M.-H. (2012). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97, 255–304.Google Scholar

Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2002). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419–456.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R. (2008). Packaging property: The effect of paradigmatic framing of property rights symposium: A psychological perspective on property law. Tulane Law Review, 83, 691–734.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R., & Stern, S. M. (2009). Property frames. Washington University Law Review, 87, 449–504.Google Scholar

Neal, T. M., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nitschke, F. T., McKimmie, B. M., & Vanman, E. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of the emotional victim effect for female adult rape complainants: Does complainant distress influence credibility? Psychological Bulletin, 145, 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ogloff, J. R. P. (2002). Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century. In Ogloff, J. R. P. (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 1–33). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar

O’Grady, C. (2016). A behavioral approach to lawyer mistake and apology. New England Law Review, 51, 7–51.Google Scholar

O’Grady, C. & Eldred, T. (2021). Beyond the rules: Behavioral legal ethics and professional responsibility. West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perlman, A. M. (2015). A behavioral theory of legal ethics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1639–1669.Google Scholar

Petrocelli, J. V., Percy, E. J., Sherman, S. J., & Tormala, Z. L. (2011). Counterfactual potency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 30–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Phalen, H. J., Salerno, J. M., & Nadler, J. (2021). Emotional evidence in court. In Bandes, S. A., Madeira, J. L., Temple, K. D. & White, E. K. (Eds.), Research handbook on law and emotion (pp. 288–311). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119085.00033Google Scholar

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805).Google Scholar

Plaut, V. C., & Bartlett III, R. P. (2012). Blind consent? A social psychological investigation of non-readership of click-through agreements. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic analysis of law. Little Brown.Google Scholar

Quintanilla, V. D., & Avtgis, A. B. (2016). The public believes predispute binding arbitration clauses are unjust: Ethical implications for dispute-system design in the time of vanishing trials. Fordham Law Review, 85, 2119–2150.Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J. J. (1998). A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 571–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rachlinski, J. J. (2000). The “new” law and psychology: A reply to critics, skeptics, and cautious supporters. Cornell Law Review, 85, 739–766.Google Scholar

Rachlinski, J. J. (2003). Misunderstanding ability, misallocating responsibility. Brooklyn Law Review, 68, 1055–1092.Google Scholar

Radin, M. J. (1981). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 34, 957.Google Scholar

Redlich, A. D., Edkins, V. A., Bibas, S., & Madon, S. (2017). The psychology of defendant plea decision making. American Psychologist, 72, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Robbennolt, J. K. (2002). Determining punitive damages: Empirical insights and implications for reform. Buffalo Law Review, 50, 103–203.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K. (2014). Litigation and settlement. In Zamir, E. & Teichman, D. (Eds.), Handbook on behavioral economics and the law (pp. 623–642). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K. (2015). Behavioral ethics meets legal ethics. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., Bregant, J., & Winship, V. (2023). Settlement schemas: How laypeople understand civil settlement. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(3), 488–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The psychology of tort law. New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., & Sternlight, J. R. (2013). Behavioral legal ethics. Arizona State Law Journal, 45, 1107–1182.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., & Sternlight, J. (2021). (2nd ed.). Psychology for lawyers: Understanding the human factors in negotiation, litigation, and decision making. ABA Publishing.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312716354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Robinson, P., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Westview Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., & Kurzban, R. (2007). Concordance and conflict in intuitions of justice. Minnesota Law Review, 91(6), 1829–1907.Google Scholar

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roese, N. J., Fessel, F., Summerville, A., Kruger, J., & Dilich, M. A. (2006). The propensity effect: When foresight trumps hindsight. Psychological Science, 17, 305–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, M. R., Nadler, J., & Clark, J. (2006). Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9030-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers.Google Scholar

Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saks, M. J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saks, M. J., Hollinger, L. A., Wissler, R. L., Evans, D. L., & Hart, A. J. (1997). Reducing variability in civil jury awards. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saks, M. J., & Spellman, B. A. (2016). The psychological foundations of evidence law. New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salerno, J. M. (2021). The impact of experienced and expressed emotion on legal factfinding. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scherr, K. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kassin, S. M. (2020). Cumulative disadvantage: A psychological framework for understanding how innocence can lead to confession, wrongful conviction, and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619896608CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Seidenberg, S. (July 2017). Behind the wheel: Who’s to blame when self-driving cars crash? ABA Journal, 18–19.Google Scholar

Seligman, M. A. (2018). The error theory of contract. Maryland Law Review, 78, 147–204.Google Scholar

Sevier, J. (2014). Testing Tribe’s triangle: Juries, hearsay, and psychological distance. Georgetown Law Journal, 103, 879.Google Scholar

Sevier, J. (2021). Evidence law and empirical psychology. In Dahlman, C. (Ed.), Philosophical foundations of evidence law (p. 349). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sherman, S. J., & Hoffmann, J. L. (2007). The psychology and law of voluntary manslaughter: What can psychology research teach us about the “heat of passion” defense? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.573CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon, D. (2012). In doubt: The psychology of the criminal justice process. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924, 937 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar

Smedley, M. (2019). Hearsay in the modern age: Balancing practicality and reliability by amending federal rule of evidence 801 (d)(1)(A). George Washington Law Review, 87, 207.Google Scholar

Smith, K. A. (2005). Psychology, factfinding, and entrapment. Michigan Law Review, 103(4), 759–806.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2020). Commonsense consent. Yale Law Journal, 129, 2232–2605.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2021). Experimental jurisprudence. Science, 373(6,553), 394–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Spellman, B. A., & Frampton, T. W. (2024). Reasoning in the shadow of evidence law. In Miller, M. K., Yelderman, L. A., Cantone, J. A., Huss, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psychology and legal decision making (pp. 395–411). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Spellman, B. A., & Kincannon, A. (2001). The relation between counterfactual (“but for”) and causal reasoning: Experimental findings and implications for jurors’ decisions. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64(4), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spellman, B. A., & Schauer, F. (2013). Social cognition and the law. In Carlston, D. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (Ch. 40; pp. 829–850). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Starr, E., Prescott, J. J., & Bishara, N. (2020). The behavioral effects of (unenforceable) contracts. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 36(3), 633–687.Google Scholar

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(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stern, S. M., & Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (2020). The psychology of property law. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Stone, R., & Stremitzer, A. (2020). Promises, reliance, and psychological lock-in. The Journal of Legal Studies, 49, 33–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sundby, S. E. (1997). Capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy remorse and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1557–1598.Google Scholar

Teichman, D., Tor, A., & Zamir, E. (2023). If you can’t beat them, join them: Richard Posner and behavioral law and economics. History of Economic Ideas, 31, 67–75.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tobia, K. (2022). Experimental jurisprudence. The University of Chicago Law Review, 89(3), 735–802.Google Scholar

Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tuerkheimer, D. (2017). Incredible women: Sexual violence and the credibility discount. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166, 1–58.Google Scholar

Tuerkheimer, D. (2021). Credible: Why we doubt accusers and protect abusers. HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice-criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

United States District Courts, Civil Cases Terminated, by District and Action Taken, During the 12-Month Period Ending June 30 (2024), tbl. C-4A, USCourts.gov, www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/c-4/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary/2024/06/30.Google Scholar

Vallano, J. P. (2013). Psychological injuries and legal decision making in civil cases: What we know and what we do not know. Psychological Injury & Law, 6, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vidmar, N. & Schuller, R. A. (1987). Individual differences and the pursuit of legal rights: A preliminary inquiry. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Chin, J. (2007). Feeling duped: Emotional, motivational, and cognitive aspects of being exploited by others. Review of General Psychology, 11, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ward, B. H. (2006). Sentencing without remorse. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 38, 131–168.Google Scholar

Weisman, R. (2016). Showing remorse: Law and the social control of emotion. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wells, G. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of probability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wheeler, S. C., & Bechler, C. J. (2021). Objects and self-identity. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wiener, R. L., Winter, R. J., Rogers, M., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Kadela, K., Hackney, A., & Warren, L. (2002). Evaluating published research in psychology and law: A gatekeeper analysis of law and human behavior. In Ogloff, J. R. P. (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 371–405). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar

Wilford, M. S., & Redlich, A. D. (May, 2018). (Guest editors). Special issue on guilty pleas. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24. 397–518.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2010). Do liquidated damages encourage breach? A psychological experiment. Michigan Law Review, 108, 633–671.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2011). Breaching the mortgage contract: The behavioral economics of strategic default. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 1547–1584.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2012). Transferring trust: Reciprocity norms and assignment of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(3), 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2014). A psychological account of consent to fine print. Iowa Law Review, 99, 1745–1784.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2015a). Incentives to breach. American Law and Economic Review, 47, 290–311.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2015b). Intuitive formalism in contract. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163, 2109–2129.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2017). The perverse consequences of disclosing standard terms. Cornell Law Review, 103, 117–176.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2020). Justifying bad deals. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169, 193–240.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Baron, J. (2009). Moral judgment and moral heuristics in breach of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Hoffman, D. (2010) Breach is for suckers. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63, 1001–1046.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Hoffman, D. (2015). The common sense of contract formation. Stanford Law Review, 67, 1269–1301.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T., Hoffman, D., & Campbell, E. (2023). Expecting specific performance. New York University Law Review, 98, 1633–1695.Google Scholar

Zhong, R., Baranoski, M., Feigenson, N., Davidson, L., Buchanan, A., & Zonana, H. V. (2014). So you’re sorry? The role of remorse in criminal law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(1), 39–48.Google ScholarPubMed

Alschuler, A. (2000). Law without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, W., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2010). Moral Intuitions. In Moral Psychology Handbook (Doris, J., Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 246–272.Google Scholar

Berker, S. (2009). The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37, 293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beutel, F. (1934). Some Implications of Experimental Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review, 48, 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beutel, F. (1951). Outline of the Nature and Methods of Experimental Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, 51, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bilz, K. (2014). Testing the Expressive Theory of Punishment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13.2, 358–392.Google Scholar

Bradley, F. H. (1962/1876). Ethical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. (1969/1889). The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong (Chisholm, R., Ed.). New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Cardozo, B. (1931). Mr. Justice Holmes. Harvard Law Review, 44, 682–692.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. (1916). The Place of Logic in the Law. Harvard Law Review, 29, 622–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, W. (1924). The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws. Yale Law Journal, 33, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, W. (1927). Scientific Method and the Law. American Bar Association Journal, 13, 303–309.Google Scholar

Cowan, T. (1954). Postulates for Experimental Jurisprudence. Rutgers Law Review, 9, 404–424.Google Scholar

Dailey, A. (1998). Holmes and the Romantic Mind. Duke Law Journal, 48, 429–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dewey, J. (1924). Logical Method and Law. Cornell Law Quarterly, 10, 17–27.Google Scholar

Duxbury, N. (1995). Patterns of American Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frank, J. (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward-McCann.Google Scholar

Frank, J. (1932). Mr. Justice Holmes and Non-Euclidean Legal Thinking. Cornell Law Quarterly, 17, 568–603.Google Scholar

Frank, J. (1933). Experimental Jurisprudence and the “New Deal.” Address to the American Association of Law Schools, Chicago, Illinois, December 30, 1933.Google Scholar

Frank, J. (1949). Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Jurisprudence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. (1940). The Law in Quest of Itself. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Garlan, E. (1941). Legal Realism and Justice. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilmore, G. (1977). The Ages of American Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Greene, J. (2008). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In Moral Psychology, Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development (Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 35–79.Google Scholar

Grey, T. (1995). Bad Man from Olympus. New York Review of Books. July 13, 1995.Google Scholar

Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hammond, W. (1881). American Law Schools, Past and Future. Southern Law Review, 7, 400–429.Google Scholar

Harman, G. (1965). Inference to the Best Explanation. The Philosophical Review, 65, 88–95.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Henrich, J. (2021). The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. New York: Picador.Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33.2–3, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Herget, J. (1990). American Jurisprudence, 1870–1970: A History. Houston: Rice University Press.Google Scholar

Holmes, O. W. (1870). Codes, and the Arrangement of the Law. American Law Review, 5, 1–13.Google Scholar

Holmes, O. W. (1991/1881). The Common Law. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Holmes, O. W. (1897). The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review, 10, 457–478.Google Scholar

Horwitz, M. (1992). The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutcheson, J. (1929). The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the Hunch in Judicial Decision. Cornell Law Quarterly, 14, 274–288.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Jonsen, A. & Toulmin, S. (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalman, L. (1986). Legal Realism at Yale, 1927–1960. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Kellogg, F. R. (1984). The Formative Essays of Justice Holmes: The Making of an American Legal Philosophy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Kelly, P. & Wendt, L. (2002). What Judges Tell Juries about Negligence: A Review of Pattern Jury Instructions. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77, 587–682.Google Scholar

Klass, G. & Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2023). Gender and Deception: Moral Perceptions and Legal Responses. Northwestern Law Review, 118, 193–225.Google Scholar

Kneer, M. & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2017). Mens Rea Ascription, Expertise, and Outcome Effects: Professional Judges Surveyed. Cognition, 169, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Knobe, J. & Shapiro, S. (2021). Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review, 88, 165–236.Google Scholar

Kobick, J. & Knobe, J. (2009). Interpreting Intent: How Research on Folk Judgments of Intentionality Can Inform Statutory Interpretation. Brooklyn Law Review, 75, 409–431.Google Scholar

Leiter, B. (2007). Naturalizing Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levine, S., Leslie, A., & Mikhail, J. (2018). The Mental Representation of Human Action. Cognitive Science, 42, 1728–1747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Llewellyn, K. (1930). The Bramble Bush: Our Law and Its Study. Privately printed. (Page numbers to 2d edition (1951). Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications).Google Scholar

Llewellyn, K. (1931). Some Realism about Realism. Harvard Law Review, 44, 1222–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Llewellyn, K. (1960). The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Macleod, J. (2019). Ordinary Causation: A Study in Experimental Statutory Interpretation. Indiana Law Review, 94, 957–1029.Google Scholar

Malle, B. & Nelson, S. (2003). Judging Mens Rea: The Tension between Folk Concepts and Legal Concepts of Intentionality. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21.5, 563–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar

Mensch, E. (1982). The History of Mainstream Legal Thought. In The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (Kairys, D., Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 18–39.Google Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2002). Law, Science, and Morality: A Review of Richard Posner’s The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Stanford Law Review, 54, 1057–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mikhail, J. (2009). Moral Grammar and Intuitive Jurisprudence: A Formal Model of Unconscious Moral and Legal Knowledge. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 50, 27–100.Google Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2011). Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2013). New Perspectives on Moral Cognition: Reply to Zimmerman, Enoch, and Chemla, Egre, and Shlenker. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 8, 66–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2014). Any Animal Whatever? Harmful Battery and Its Elements as Building Blocks of Moral Cognition. Ethics, 124, 750–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikhail, J. (2022). Moral Intuitions and Moral Nativism. In Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (Vargas, M. & Doris, J., Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 364–387.Google Scholar

Mikhail, J., Sorrentino, C., & Spelke, E. (1998). Toward a Universal Moral Grammar. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1250.Google Scholar

Moore, U. (1923). Rational Basis of Legal Institutions. Columbia Law Review, 23, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, U. & Sussman, G. (1932). The Lawyer’s Law. Yale Law Journal, 41, 566–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Donnell, J. (1985). The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870–1920. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Oliphant, H. (1928). A Return to Stare Decisis. American Bar Association Journal, 14, 71–76, 107, 159–162.Google Scholar

Oliphant, H. & Hewitt, A. (1929). “Introduction” to Jacques Rueff, From the Physical to the Social Sciences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Reprinted in Readings in Jurisprudence (J. Hall, Ed.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, pp. 355–363.Google Scholar

Penningroth, D. (2022). Race in Contract Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 170, 1199–1301.Google Scholar

Posner, R. (1997). The Path Away from the Law. Harvard Law Review, 110, 1039–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prochownik, K. (2021). The Experimental Philosophy of Law: New Ways, Old Questions, and How Not to Get Lost. Philosophy Compass, 16, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Purcell, E. (1973). The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism & the Problem of Value. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar

Radin, M. (1925). The Theory of Judicial Decision: Or, How Judges Think. American Bar Association Journal, 11, 357.Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (1951). Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics. Philosophical Review, 60, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, D. (1986). An Intellectual History of Psychology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. & Darley, J. (1995). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. San Francisco: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, D. (1995). The Hidden Holmes: His Theory of Torts in History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schlegel, J. (1995). American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Shoemaker, D. & Tobia, K. (2022). Personal Identity. In Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (Vargas, M. & Doris, J., Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 543–563.Google Scholar

Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the Courtroom: Lay Representations of Legal Concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61.6, 857–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.857CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solum, L. (2014). The Positive Foundations of Formalism: False Necessity and American Legal Realism. Harvard Law Review, 127, 2464–2497.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2020). Commonsense Consent. Yale Law Journal, 129, 2232–2324.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2021). Experimental Jurisprudence. Science, 373, 395–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Spellman, B. (1997). Crediting Causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126.4, 323.Google Scholar

Tamanaha, B. (2010). Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2018). How People Judge What Is Reasonable. Alabama Law Review, 70, 293–359.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2020). Testing Ordinary Meaning. Harvard Law Review, 134, 726–806.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2022). Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review, 89, 735–802.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. & Mikhail, J. (2021). Two Types of Empirical Textualism. Brooklyn Law Review, 86, 461–487.Google Scholar

Tobia, K., Slocum, B., & Nourse, V. (2022). Statutory Interpretation from the Outside. Columbia Law Review, 122, 213–330.Google Scholar

Tobia, K., Slocum, B., & Nourse, V. (2023). Ordinary Meaning and Ordinary People. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 171, 365–468.Google Scholar

Twining, W. (1973). Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Watson, J. (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

White, G. E. (1995). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2014). A Psychological Account of Consent to Fine Print. Iowa Law Review, 99, 1745–1784.Google Scholar

Wilkinson-Ryan, T. & Hoffman, D. (2015). The Common Sense of Contract Formation. Stanford Law Review, 67, 1269–1301.Google Scholar

Wolff, R. P. (1973). The Autonomy of Reason: A Commentary on Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. “A Plea for Excuses.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57 (1957): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Rumble, Wilfrid E. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 (1839).Google Scholar

Batson, Daniel C., & Shaw, Laura L.. “Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives.” Psychological Inquiry 1 (1991): 107–22.Google Scholar

Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961 (republished 1991).Google Scholar

Clarke, Ronald V., Contre, Stephan, & Petrossian, Gohar. “Deterrence and Fare Evasion: Results of a Natural Experiment.” Security Journal 23 (2010): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, Jules L. The Practice of Principle: In Defence of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Cope, Kevin L. “Experimental Studies on the Normative Force of Law.” University of Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Paper Series 2023–45, available at SSRN, abstract=4456250 (May 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Del Mar, Maksymilian (ed.). Legal Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge, 2017.Google Scholar

Dickson, Julie. Evaluation and Legal Theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001.Google Scholar

Edgeworth, Brendan. “Legal Positivism and the Philosophy of Language: A Critique of H. L. A. Hart’s ‘Descriptive Sociology.’” Legal Studies 6 (1986): 115–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilovich, Thomas. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. Bulloch, Penelope, Raz, Joseph, and Green, Leslie (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2012 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. “Commands and Authoritative Legal Reasons.” In Hart, H. L. A. (ed.). Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982, 243–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. “The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series) 49 (1948–49): 171–94.Google Scholar

Himma, Kenneth Einar. Coercion and the Nature of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Himma, Kenneth Einar. “The Authorization of Coercive Enforcement Mechanisms as a Conceptually Necessary Feature of Law.” Jurisprudence 7 (2016): 593–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Himma, Kenneth Einar. “H. L. A. Hart and the Practical Difference Thesis.” Legal Theory 9 (2003): 1–43.Google Scholar

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. “The Path of the Law.” Harvard Law Review 10 (1897): 457–78.Google Scholar

King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., & Verba, Sidney. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krygier, Martin. “The Concept of Law and Social Theory.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1982): 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lacey, Nicola. “The Path Not Taken: H. L. A. Hart’s Essay on Discretion.” Harvard Law Review 127 (2013): 636–51.Google Scholar

Lacey, Nicola. A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Leiter, Brian. “The Demarcation Problem in Jurisprudence: A New Case for Skepticism.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31 (2011): 663–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacCormick, Neil. H. L. A. Hart. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2nd ed., 2008.Google Scholar

Marmor, Andrei. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2005.Google Scholar

Penner, Louis A. “Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives.” Annual Review of Psychology 56 (2005): 365–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Piliavin, Jane Allyn, & Charng, Hong-Wen. “Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research.” American Review of Sociology 16 (1990): 27–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plaxton, Michael. “The Challenge of the Puzzled Man.” McGill Law Journal 58 (2012): 451–80.Google Scholar

Plunkett, David, & Shapiro, Scott. “Law, Morality, and Everything Else: General Jurisprudence as a Branch of Metanormative Inquiry.” Ethics 128 (2017): 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raz, Joseph. “Can There Be a Theory of Law?” In Golding, Martin P., & Edmundson, William A. (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2005, 324–42.Google Scholar

Raz, Joseph. “On the Nature of Law.” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 82 (1996): 1–25.Google Scholar

Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Regan, Donald H. “Reasons, Authority, and the Meaning of ‘Obey’: Further Thoughts on Raz and Obedience to Law.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 3 (1990): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schauer, Frederick. The Force of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar

Schauer, Frederick. “Was Austin Right After All?” Ratio Juris 23 (2010): 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schauer, Frederick. “A Comment on the Structure of Rights.” Georgia Law Review 21 (1993): 415–34.Google Scholar

Schelling, Thomas. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Scott J. Legality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spamann, Holger, & Klöhn, Lars. “Can Law Students Replace Judges in Experiments of Judicial Decision-Making?” Harvard Law School Public Law Working Paper 1093 (May 15, 2023), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4362199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spamann, Holger, & Klöhn, Lars. “Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45 (2016): 255–80.Google Scholar

Sugarman, David. “Hart Interviewed: H. L. A. Hart in Conversation with David Sugarman.” Journal of Law and Society 32 (2005): 267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tur, R. H. S. “What Is Jurisprudence?” Philosophical Quarterly 28 (1978): 149–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twining, William. “Schauer on Hart.” Harvard Law Review Forum 119 (2006): 122–30.Google Scholar

Tyler, Tom R. “Understanding the Force of Law.” Tulsa Law Review 51 (2016): 507–19.Google Scholar

Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2nd ed., 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tyler, Tom R. “Beyond Self-Interest: Why People Obey Laws and Accept Judicial Decisions.” The Responsive Community 8(4) (Fall 1998): 44–52.Google Scholar

Tyler, Tom R. “Compliance with Intellectual Property Laws: A Psychological Perspective.” NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 29 (1997): 213–26.Google Scholar

Wistrich, Andrew J., Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., & Guthrie, Chris. “‘Heart versus Head’ Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?” Texas Law Review 93 (2014): 855–923.Google Scholar

Wistrich, Andrew J., Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., & Guthrie, Chris. “Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153 (2005): 1251–1345.Google Scholar

Anderson, Elizabeth. “Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N., 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/feminism-epistemology/.Google Scholar

Bublitz, Christoph. “Die Genealogie der Vergeltung, Oder Warum wir retributiven Intuitionen nicht trauen sollten.” In Festschrift Merkel, edited by Bublitz, Christoph and Bung, Jochen et al., 459–92. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2020a.Google Scholar

Bublitz, Christoph. “What Is Wrong with Hungry Judges?” In Law, Science, Rationality, edited by Waltermann, Antonia, Roef, David, Hage, Jaap, and Jelicic, Marko, 1–30. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2020b.Google Scholar

Bublitz, Christoph. “Epistemische Argumente im Recht: Von Biases und Intuitionen zu Genese und Rechtfertigung.” In Empirische Ethik: Grundlagentexte aus Psychologie und Philosophie, edited by Paulo, Norbert and Bublitz, Christoph, 501–45. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2020c.Google Scholar

Bublitz, Christoph. “Rights as Rationalizations? Psychological Debunking of Beliefs about Human Rights.” Legal Theory 27, no. 2 (June 2021): 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325221000082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bumke, Christian. Rechtsdogmatik: eine Disziplin und ihre Arbeitsweise: zugleich eine Studie über das rechtsdogmatische Arbeiten Friedrich Carl von Savignys. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.Google Scholar

Danziger, Shai, Levav, Jonathan, and Avnaim-Pesso, Liora. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 17 (2011a): 6889–92.Google Scholar

Danziger, Shai, Levav, Jonathan, and Avnaim-Pesso, Liora. “Reply to Weinshall-Margel and Shapard: Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions Persist.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 42 (2011b): E834–E834.Google Scholar

Ditto, Peter H., Pizarro, David A., and Tannenbaum, David. “Motivated Moral Reasoning.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation 50 (2009): 307–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00410-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enoch, David. “On Analogies, Disanalogies, and Moral Philosophy: A Comment on John Mikhail’s Elements of Moral Cognition.” Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 8, no. 1 (December 1, 2013): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jls012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Esser, Josef. Vorverständnis und Methodenwahl in der Rechtsfindung: Rationalitätsgrundlagen richterlicher Entscheidungspraxis. Durchges. und erg. Ausg. Fischer-Athenäum-Taschenbücher Rechtswissenschaft 6001. Frankfurt/M: Athenäum-Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl, 1972.Google Scholar

Fletcher, George P. Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, Jerome. “Are Judges Human? Part One: The Effect on Legal Thinking of the Assumption That Judges Behave Like Human Beings.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 80, no. 1 (November 1931): 17. https://doi.org/10.2307/3308020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giroux, Megan E., Coburn, Patricia I., Harley, Erin M., Connolly, Deborah A., and Bernstein, Daniel M.. “Hindsight Bias and Law.” Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 224, no. 3 (July 2016): 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glöckner, Andreas. “The Irrational Hungry Judge Effect Revisited: Simulations Reveal That the Magnitude of the Effect Is Overestimated.” Judgment and Decision Making (2016): 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holton, Richard. “Norms and the Knobe Effect.” Analysis 70, no. 3 (July 1, 2010): 417–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anq037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hörnle, Tatjana. “Social Expectations in the Criminal Law: The ‘Reasonable Person’ in a Comparative Perspective.” New Criminal Law Review 11, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2008.11.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirchmair, Lando. “How (Not) to Argue for the Relation between Natural Sciences and Law: Why the Thesis of an Innate ‘Universal Moral Grammar’ and Its Relevance for Law as Argued by John Mikhail Fails.” Archiv Fuer Rechts- Und Sozialphilosphie 105, no. 4 (October 1, 2019): 523–35. https://doi.org/10.25162/arsp-2019-0025.Google Scholar

Knobe, Joshua. “Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language.” Analysis 63 (2003): 190–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knobe, Joshua. “The Concept of Intentional Action: A Case Study in the Uses of Folk Psychology.” Philosophical Studies 130, no. 2 (August 2006): 203–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-4510-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knobe, Joshua, and Shapiro, Scott J.. “Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence.” SSRN Electronic Journal (2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lampe, Ernst-Joachim, ed. Das sogenannte Rechtsgefühl. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie 10. Opladen: Westdt. Verl, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martinović, Igor. “Intention and Awareness of Wrongdoing.” Zeitschrift Für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9 (2017): 564–72.Google Scholar

Mehmood, Sultan, Seror, Avner, and Chen, Daniel L.. “Ramadan Fasting Increases Leniency in Judges from Pakistan and India.” Nature Human Behaviour (March 13, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01547-3.Google ScholarPubMed

Mikhail, John. “Moral Grammar and Intuitive Jurisprudence.” In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by Ross, Brian, 50: 27–100. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00402-7.Google Scholar

Mikhail, John. “Moral Grammar and Human Rights: Some Reflections on Cognitive Science and Enlightenment Rationalism.” In Understanding Social Action, Promoting Human Rights, edited by Goodman, Ryan, Jinks, Derek, and Woods, Andrew, 160–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Mikhail, John. Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawl’s Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar

Neumann, Ulfrid. Wahrheit im Recht: zu Problematik und Legitimität einer fragwürdigen Denkform; [Vortrag, gehalten am 15. Mai 2003]. Würzburger Vorträge zur Rechtsphilosophie, Rechtstheorie und Rechtssoziologie 32. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, Shaun. “Process Debunking and Ethics.” Ethics 124, no. 4 (July 2014): 727–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/675877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Puppe, Ingeborg. Strafrechtsdogmatische Analysen. Bonner rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. Göttingen: V & R unipress, 2006.Google Scholar

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Original ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, Brian, Stey, Paul, and Alfano, Mark. “Reversing the Side-Effect Effect: The Power of Salient Norms.” Philosophical Studies 172, no. 1 (January 2015): 177–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0283-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roxin, Claus, and Greco, Luis. Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Bd. 1: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau Der Verbrechenslehre. München: C.H.BECK, 2020. https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406758010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sauer, Hanno. Debunking Arguments in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108529181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schauer, Frederick F. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Segal, Jeffrey Allan, and Spaeth, Harold J.. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sood, Avani Mehta. “Motivated Cognition in Legal Judgments – An Analytic Review.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9, no. 1 (November 3, 2013): 307–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stark, Alexander. “Rechtsdogmatik zwischen Deskription und Präskription. Zur Wandlungsfähigkeit einer Disziplin.” In Wandlungen im Öffentlichen Recht, edited by Bretthauer, Sebastian, Henrich, Christina, Völzmann, Berit, Wolckenhaar, Leonard, and Zimmermann, Sören, 389–408. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748905127-389.Google Scholar

Voßkuhle, Andreas. “Preface to the German Law Journal’s Constitutional Reasoning Special Edition.” German Law Journal 14, no. 8 (August 1, 2013): 979–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weinshall-Margel, Keren, and Shapard, John. “Overlooked Factors in the Analysis of Parole Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 42 (2011): E833–E833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Almeida, G. (2020) Breaking Rules (Doctoral dissertation, PUC-Rio).Google Scholar

Amos, S. (1872) A Systematic View of the Science of Jurisprudence, London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar

Austin, J. (1832) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Baldassarri, D. & Grossman, G. (2011) Centralized Sanctioning and Legitimate Authority Promote Cooperation in Humans, 108 PNAS 11023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., Hannikainen, I. R., & Almeida, G. (2022) Do Formalist Judges Abide by Their Abstract Principles? A Two‐Country Study in Adjudication, 35 Int. J. Semiot. L. 1903 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09846-6.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. (2001) The Practice of Principle, Oxford: Clarendon Law Lectures.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. (2011) The Architecture of Jurisprudence, 121, 2 Yale L.J. 11.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. & Leiter, B. (1993) Determinacy, Objectivity, and Authority, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, P. (2020) Fractured Justice: An Experimental Study of Pretrial Judicial Decision-Making, 88 U. Cin. L. Rev. 365.Google Scholar

Dickson, E. S., Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. A. (2022) Identifying Legitimacy: Experimental Evidence on Compliance with Authority, 8 Sci. Adv. eabj7377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dworkin, R. M. (1986) Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Eigen, Z. J. (2012) When and Why Individuals Obey Contracts: Experimental Evidence of Consent, Compliance, Promise, and Performance, 41 J. Legal Stud. 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellinghaus, F. & Wright, T. (2005) The Common Law of Contracts: Are Broad Principles Better than Detailed Ones? An Empirical Investigation, 11 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engel, C. & Kurschilgen, M. (2013) The Coevolution of Behavior and Normative Expectations: An Experiment, 15 Amer. L. & Econ. Rev. 578.Google Scholar

Feldman, Y. & Harel, A. (2008) Social Norms, Self-Interest and Ambiguity of Legal Norms: An Experimental Analysis of the Rule vs. Standard Dilemma, 4 Rev. L. Econ. 81.Google Scholar

Finnis, J. (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Law Series.Google Scholar

Furth-Matzkin, M. (2019) The Harmful Effects of Unenforceable Contract Terms: Experimental Evidence, 70 Ala. L. Rev. 1031–1072.Google Scholar

Green, M. S. (2011) Leiter on the Legal Realists, 30 L. & Phil. 381.Google Scholar

Hannikainen, I., et al. (2022) Coordination and Expertise Foster Legal Textualism, 119 PNAS 44, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206531119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hart, H. L. A. (1958) Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. (1961) The Concept of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Law Series.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. (1982) Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoeft, L., Kurschilgen, M., & Mill, W. (2022) Norms as Obligations, Munich Papers in Political Economy, Working Paper No. 04/2022.Google Scholar

Huang, B. I. (2011) Lightened Scrutiny, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1109.Google Scholar

Jaeger, C. (2021) The Empirical Reasonable Person, 72 Ala. L. Rev. 887.Google Scholar

Kennedy, D. (1997) A Critique of Adjudication, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar