Abrahams, R. (1998). Vigilant citizens: Vigilantism and the state. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Abrahams, R. (2002). Vigilantism, state jurisdiction and community morality: Control of crime and “undesirable” behaviour when the state “fails.” In Pardo, I. (Ed.), Morals of legitimacy: Between agency and system (pp. 107–126). New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Black, D. (1998). The social structure of right and wrong (Revised ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2013). Police legitimacy in action: Lessons for theory and practice. In Reisig, M. & Kane, R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of police and policing (pp. 551–570). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. M. (1975). Strain of violence. Historical studies of American violence and vigilantism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. M. (1976). The history of vigilantism in America. In Rosenbaum, H. J. & Sederberg, P. C. (Eds.), Vigilante politics (pp. 79–109). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Burhmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.Google Scholar

Haas, N. E., de Keijser, J. W., & Bruinsma, G. J. N. (2012). Public support for vigilantism: An experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, N. E., de Keijser, J. W., & Bruinsma, G. J. N. (2014). Public support for vigilantism, confidence in police and police responsiveness. Policing & Society, 24, 224–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huggins, M. K. (1991). Vigilantism and the state in modern Latin America: Essays on extralegal violence. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreml, W. P. (1976). The vigilante personality. In Rosenbaum, H. & Sederberg, P. (Eds.), Vigilante politics (pp. 45–63). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

MacCormick, N., & Garland, D. (1998). Sovereign states and vengeful victims: The problem of the right to punish. In Ashworth, A. & Wasik, M. (Eds.), Fundamentals of sentencing theory: Essays in honour of Andrew von Hirsch (pp. 11–29). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

McDermott, C. M., & Miller, M. K. (2016). Individual differences impact support for vigilante justice. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 8(3), 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, M. (2013). Relationship between religious characteristics and responses to vigilantism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 496–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nadelhoffer, T., Shepard, J., Nahmias, E., Sripada, C., & Ross, L. T. (2014). The free will inventory: Measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 25, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neapolitan, J. (1987). Vigilante behavior and attribution bias. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). Let’s publish fewer papers. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pratten, D., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (2008). Global vigilantes: Anthropological perspectives on justice and violence (pp. 267–290). London: Hurst Publishing.Google Scholar

Rand, G. (2012). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Richardson, J. T. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenbaum, H. J., & Sederberg, P. C. (1974). Vigilantism: An analysis of establishment violence. Comparative Politics, 6(4), 541–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenbaum, H. J., & Sederberg, P. C. (Eds.). (1976). Vigilante politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schadt, A. M., & DeLisi, M. (2007). Is vigilantism on your mind? An exploratory study of nuance and contradiction in student death penalty opinion. Criminal Justice Studies, 20(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sederberg, P. (1978). The phenomenology of vigilantism in contemporary America: An interpretation. Terrorism, 1(3–4), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(1), 25.Google Scholar

Weisburd, D. (1988). Vigilantism as community social control: Developing a quantitative criminological model. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiener, R. L., Habert, K., Shkodriani, G., & Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychology of jury nullification: Predicting when jurors disobey the law 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(17), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zizumbo-Colunga, D. (2017). Community, authorities, and support for vigilantism: Experimental evidence. Political Behavior, 39, 989–1015.Google Scholar

Adams, F. (2015). The Knobe-effect and the law. Method – Analytic Perspectives, 4(6), 121–135.Google Scholar

Burra, A., & Knobe, J. (2006). The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6(1–2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853706776931222Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dalbauer, N., & Hergovich, A. (2013). Is what is worse more likely? – The probabilistic explanation of the epistemic side-effect effect. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(4), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0156-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donelson, R., & Hannikainen, I. (2020). Fuller and the folk: The inner morality of law revisited. In Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. (Eds.), Oxford studies in experimental philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 6–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198852407.003.0002Google Scholar

Elliott, C. (2000). The French law of intent and its influence on the development of international criminal law. Crim. LF, 11, 35.Google Scholar

Feltz, A., & Cokely, E. T. (2009). Do judgments about freedom and responsibility depend on who you are? Personality differences in intuitions about compatibilism and incompatibilism. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(1), 342–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horvath, J. (2010). How (not) to react to experimental philosophy. Philosophical Psychology, 23(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.505878CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horvath, J. (2023). Intuitions in experimental philosophy. In Bauer, M., & Kornmesser, S. (Eds.), The compact compendium of experimental philosophy (pp. 71–100). Berlin/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Horvath, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2016). Intuitive expertise and intuitions about knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 173(10), 2701–2726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0627-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horvath, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2021). Intuitive expertise in moral judgements. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2021.1890162Google Scholar

Jiménez, F. (2022). The limits of experimental jurisprudence. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 5 of this volume.Google Scholar

Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2017). Mens rea ascription, expertise and outcome effects: Professional judges surveyed. Cognition, 169, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., & Bublitz, C. (2023). Outcome effects and biases in legal reasoning with legal concepts: A study with German experts. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Kneer, M., & Machery, E. (2019). No luck for moral luck. Cognition, 182, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., & Skoczeń, I. (2023). Outcome effects, moral luck and the hindsight bias. Cognition, 232, 105258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., Hannikainen, I., Zehnder, M., Almeida, G., Aguiar, F., Bystranowski, P., Dranseika, V., Janik, B., Olier García, J., Güver, L., Liefgreen, A., Tobia, K., Próchnicki, M., Rosas, A., Skoczeń, I., Strohmaier, N., & Struchiner, N. (2022). The severity effect on intentionality and knowledge: A cross-cultural study. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63(3), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8284.00419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130(2), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-4510-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kobick, J. (2010). Discriminatory intent reconsidered: Folk concepts of intentionality and equal protection jurisprudence. Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review, 45(2), 517–562.Google Scholar

Kobick, J., & Knobe, J. (2009). Interpreting intent: How research on folk judgments of intentionality can inform statutory analysis. Brooklyn Law Review, 75(2), 409–431.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17(5), 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01722.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ludwig, K. (2007). The epistemology of thought experiments: First person versus third person approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31(1), 128–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00160.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marchuk, I. (2015). Fundamental concept of crime in international criminal law: Comparative analysis. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Olier García, J., & Kneer, M. (2022). Severity effect and mental state attributions. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Pradel, J. (2002). Manuel de droit pénal général. Paris: Cujas.Google Scholar

Prochownik, K. M. (2019). Conditions of criminal responsibility from the perspective of experimental legal philosophy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kraków: Jagiellonian University.Google Scholar

Prochownik, K. M. (2021). The experimental philosophy of law: New ways, old questions, and how not to get lost. Philosophy Compass, 16(6), e12791. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12791CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prochownik, K. M., Wiegmann, A., & Horvath, J. (2021). Blame blocking and expertise effects revisited. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, 2323–2329. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wp4647hGoogle Scholar

Prochownik, K. M., Krebs, M., Wiegmann, A., & Horvath, J. (2020). Not as bad as painted? Legal expertise, intentionality ascription, and outcome effects revisited. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1930–1936.Google Scholar

Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2012). Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non‐philosophers. Mind & Language, 27(2), 135–153. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2012.01438.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solan, L. M. (2009). Blame, praise, and the structure of legal rules. Brooklyn Law Review, 75(2), 517–544.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2020). Commonsense consent. The Yale Law Journal, 129(8), 2232–2605.Google Scholar

Sommers, R. (2021). Experimental jurisprudence. Science, 373(6553), 394–395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf0711CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Struchiner, N., Almeida, G., & Hannikainen, I. (2020). Legal decision-making and the abstract/concrete paradox. Cognition, 205, 104421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Taylor, G. (2004). Concepts of intention in German criminal law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/24.1.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tobia, K. P. (2022). Experimental jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review, 89(3), 735–802. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/experimental-jurisprudenceGoogle Scholar

Tobia, K. P. (2024). Legal concepts and legal expertise. Synthese, 203(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04512-3Google Scholar

Wiegmann, A., Horvath, J., & Meyer, K. (2020). Intuitive expertise and irrelevant options. In Lombrozo, T., Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. (Eds.), Oxford studies in experimental philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 275–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198852407.001.0001Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (2011). Philosophical expertise and the burden of proof. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01685.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wróbel, W., & Zoll, A. (2012). Polskie prawo karne. Część ogólna. Podręcznik. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.Google Scholar

Angwin, J. et al. 2016. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica. www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencingGoogle Scholar

Asaro, P. M. 2007. Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE. 4, 14, 20–24.Google Scholar

Asaro, P. M. 2016. The liability problem for autonomous artificial agents. AAAI Spring Symposia. 190–194.Google Scholar

Awad, E. et al. 2020a. Crowdsourcing moral machines. Communications of the ACM. 63, 3, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Awad, E. et al. 2020b. Drivers are blamed more than their automated cars when both make mistakes. Nature Human Behaviour. 4, 2, 134–143.Google Scholar

Barfield, W. 2018. Liability for autonomous and artificially intelligent robots. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics. 9, 1, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. 2016. The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics. AI & Society. 31, 4, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bleher, H. and Braun, M. 2022. Diffused responsibility: Attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems. AI and Ethics. 2, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bryson, J. J. et al. 2017. Of, for, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25, 3, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cave, S. et al. 2018. Portrayals and perceptions of AI and why they matter. The Royal Society. www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/0f28477d-96c5-4740-ad8c-92224b6efaf1Google Scholar

Čerka, P. et al. 2015. Liability for damages caused by artificial intelligence. Computer Law & Security Review. 31, 3, 376–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Champagne, M. and Tonkens, R. 2015. Bridging the responsibility gap in automated warfare. Philosophy & Technology. 28, 1, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomanski, B. 2021. Liability for robots: Sidestepping the gaps. Philosophy & Technology. 34, 4, 1013–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coeckelbergh, M. 2020. Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics. 26, 4, 2051–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dastin, J. 2018. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08GGoogle Scholar

Dazio, S. and The Associated Press. 2023. Tesla driver who killed 2 people while using autopilot must pay $23,000 in restitution without having to serve any jail time. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2023/12/15/tesla-driver-to-pay-23k-in-restitution-crash-killed-2-people/Google Scholar

Delvaux, M. 2017. Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103 (INL)). European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs.Google Scholar

Diamantis, M. E. 2021. Algorithms acting badly: A solution from corporate law. The George Washington Law Review. 89, 801.Google Scholar

European Commission. 2021. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions empty: Fostering a European approach to artificial intelligence.Google Scholar

Furlough, C. et al. 2021. Attributing blame to robots: I. The influence of robot autonomy. Human Factors. 63, 4, 592–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Glavaničová, D. and Pascucci, M. 2022. Vicarious liability: A solution to a problem of AI responsibility? Ethics and Information Technology. 24, 3, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, J. et al. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96, 5, 1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heaven, W. D. 2020. Predictive policing algorithms are racist. They need to be dismantled. MIT Technology Review. www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/17/1005396/predictive-policing-algorithms-racist-dismantled-machine-learning-bias-criminal-justice/Google Scholar

Hidalgo, C. A. et al. 2021. How humans judge machines. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, D. G. 2006. Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology. 8, 4, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, D. G. 2015. Technology with no human responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics. 127, 4, 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, S. 2020. Safety driver charged in 2018 incident where self-driving Uber car killed a woman. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/uber-self-driving-car-death-safety-driver-chargedGoogle Scholar

Lima, G. et al. 2021a. Human perceptions on moral responsibility of AI: A case study in AI-assisted bail decision-making. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lima, G. et al. 2021b. The conflict between people’s urge to punish AI and legal systems. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 8, 756242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lima, G. et al. 2023. Who should pay when machines cause harm: How people distribute legal damages between developers and users. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liu, P. et al. 2021. Psychological consequences of legal responsibility misattribution associated with automated vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology. 23, 4, 763–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malle, B. F. et al. 2015. Sacrifice one for the good of many? People apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 117–124.Google Scholar

Matthias, A. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology. 6, 3, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montgomery, B. 2024. Mother says AI chatbot led her son to kill himself in lawsuit against its maker. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/23/character-ai-chatbot-sewell-setzer-deathGoogle Scholar

Obermeyer, Z. et al. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 366, 6464, 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rahwan, I. 2018. Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology. 20, 1, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sætra, H. S. 2021. Confounding complexity of machine action: A Hobbesian account of machine responsibility. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT). 12, 1, 87–100.Google Scholar

Sio, F. S. de and Mecacci, G. 2021. Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them. Philosophy & Technology. 1–28.Google Scholar

Smith, H. 2021. Clinical AI: Opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability. AI & Society. 36, 2, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solaiman, S. M. 2017. Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: A quest for legitimacy. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25, 2, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sommers, R. 2021. Experimental jurisprudence. Science. 373, 6553, 394–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sparrow, R. 2007. Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 24, 1, 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tigard, D. W. 2020. There is no techno-responsibility gap. Philosophy & Technology. 1–19.Google Scholar

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

Tobia, K. et al. 2021. When does physician use of AI increase liability? Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 62, 1, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Turner, J. 2018. Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Springer.Google Scholar

van de Poel, I. 2015. The problem of many hands. Moral responsibility and the problem of many hands. Routledge. 62–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van den Hoven van Genderen, R. 2018. Do we need new legal personhood in the age of robots and AI? Robotics, AI and the future of law. Springer. 15–55.Google Scholar

Vladeck, D. C. 2014. Machines without principals: Liability rules and artificial intelligence. Washington Law Review. 89, 117.Google Scholar

Wakabayashi, D. 2018. Self-driving Uber car kills pedestrian in Arizona, where robots roam. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.htmlGoogle Scholar

Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, Knobe, J., Struchiner, N., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2023). Purposes in law and in life: An experimental investigation of purpose attribution. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 36(1): 1–36.Google Scholar

Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2010). SENTIWORDNET 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: 2200–2204.Google Scholar

Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Keegan, B., Squire, M., Blackburn, J., & Io, P. (2020). The pushshift Reddit dataset. ArXiv Preprint, 2001.08435v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baumgartner, L. (2022). Why are reckless socks not (more of) a thing? Towards an empirical classification of evaluative concepts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44: 2869–2875.Google Scholar

Baumgartner, L., Willemsen, P., & Reuter, K. (2022). The polarity effect of evaluative language. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44: 729–735.Google Scholar

Bear, A., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive. Cognition, 167: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Blackburn, S. (1992). Through thick and thin. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary, 66: 284–299.Google Scholar

Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., Hannikainen, I. R., Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, & Struchiner, N. (2022). Do formalist judges abide by their abstract principles? A two-country study in adjudication. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 35(5): 1903–1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological foundations of the affective lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dancy, J. (1995). In defense of thick concepts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 20: 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, J. (1994). When heterosexual men kill homosexual men: Reflections on provocation law, sexual advances, and the reasonable man standard. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85: 726.Google Scholar

Eklund, M. (2011). What are thick concepts? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 41(1): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elhadad, M., & McKeown, K. R. (1990). Generating connectives. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics: 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enoch, D., & Toh, K. (2013). Legal as a thick concept. In Waluchow, W. J., & Sciaraffa, S. (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of the nature of law (pp. 257–278). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2006). SENTIWORDNET: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: 417–422.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. L. (1998). Prudence, benevolence, and negligence: Virtue ethics and tort law. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 74: 1431.Google Scholar

Frisch, L. K., Kneer, M., Krueger, J. I., & Ullrich, J. (2021). The effect of outcome severity on moral judgement and interpersonal goals of perpetrators, victims, and bystanders. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(7): 1158–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

García Olier, J. G., & Kneer, M. (2022). Severity effects and mental state attributions. Available at SSRN 4365150.Google Scholar

Gardner, J. (2015). The many faces of the reasonable person. Law Quarterly Review, 131: 563–584.Google Scholar

Gatti, L., Guerini, M., & Turchi, M. (2016). SentiWords: Deriving a high precision and high coverage lexicon for sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 7(4): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giestfeld, M. A. (2020). Folk tort law. In Hanoch, D., & Zipursky, B. C. (Eds.), Research handbook on private law theory (pp. 338–355). Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Grossmann, I., Eibach, R. P., Koyama, J., & Sahi, Q. B. (2020). Folk standards of sound judgment: Rationality versus reasonableness. Science Advances, 6(2): eaaz0289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Güver, L., & Kneer, M. (2023a). Causation and the Silly Norm effect. In Prochownik, K., & Magen, S. (Eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of law (pp. 133–168). Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Güver, L., & Kneer, M. (2023b). Causation, foreseeability, and norms. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: 888–895.Google Scholar

Hannikainen, I. R., Kneer, M., Tobia, K., Dranseika, V., Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, Poama, A., Strohmaier, N., Lopez, A. R., Bystranowski, P., & Struchiner, N. (2018). Experimental Jurisprudence Cross-Cultural Study Swap. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SK7R3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hannikainen, I. R., Tobia, K., Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, Struchiner, N., Kneer, M., Bystranowski, P., Dranseika, V., Strohmaier, N., Bensinger, S., Dolinina, K., Janik, B., Lauraitytė, E., Laakasuo, M., Liefgreen, A., Neiders, I., Próchnicki, M., Rosas, A., Sundvall, J., & Żuradzki, T. (2022). Coordination and expertise foster legal textualism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(44): e2206531119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hatzivassiloglou, V., & McKeown, K. R. (1997). Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: 174–181.Google Scholar

Herring, J. (2012). Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaeger, C. B. (2020). The empirical reasonable person. Alabama Law Review, 72: 887.Google Scholar

Jaeger, C. B. (2025). Reasonableness from an experimental jurisprudence perspective. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 26 of this volume.Google Scholar

Jatnika, D., Bijaksana, M. A., & Suryani, A. A. (2019). Word2Vec model analysis for semantic similarities in English words. Procedia Computer Science, 157: 160–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jiménez, F. (2021). Some doubts about folk jurisprudence: The case of proximate cause. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 2021: 1.Google Scholar

Jiménez, F. (2025). The limits of experimental jurisprudence. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 5 of this volume.Google Scholar

Keating, G. C. (2022). Reasonableness and risk: Right and responsibility in the law of torts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirchin, S. (2013). Thick and thin concepts. In Lafollette, H. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ethics (pp. 1–10). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee262Google Scholar

Kirfel, L., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2023). Why blame the ostrich? Understanding culpability for willful ignorance. In Prochownik, K., & Magen, S. (Eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of law (pp. 75–98). Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar

Kirfel, L., & Phillips, J. (2023). The pervasive impact of ignorance. Cognition, 231: 105316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M. (2022). Reasonableness on the Clapham omnibus: Exploring the outcome-sensitive folk concept of reasonable. In Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., & Próchnicki, M. (Eds.), Judicial decision-making (pp. 25–48). Springer.Google Scholar

Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2017). Mens rea ascription, expertise and outcome effects: Professional judges surveyed. Cognition, 169: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., & Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2018). Intention, cause, et responsabilité: Mens rea et effet Knobe. In Ferey, S., & G’Sell, F. (Eds.), Causalité, Responsabilité et Contribution à la Dette (pp. 117–144). Editions Brylant.Google Scholar

Kneer, M., & Machery, E. (2019). No luck for moral luck. Cognition, 182: 331–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., & Skoczeń, I. (2023). Outcome effects, moral luck and the hindsight bias. Cognition, 232: 105258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kneer, M., Hannikainen, I., Zehnder, M.-A., Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, Bystranowski, P., Dranseika, V., Janik, B., Garcia Olier, J., Güver, L., Liefgreen, A., Tobia, K., Próchnicki, M., Rosas, A., Skoczeń, I., Strohmaier, N., & Struchiner, N. (2023). The severity effect on intention and knowledge: A cross-cultural study with laypeople and legal experts. https://bit.ly/3aJBtO9Google Scholar

Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (2021). Proximate cause explained: An essay in experimental jurisprudence. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(1): 165–236.Google Scholar

Kobick, J., & Knobe, J. (2009). Interpreting intent: How research on folk judgments of intentionality can inform statutory analysis. Brooklyn Law Review, 75: 409.Google Scholar

Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108(3): 754–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lawlor, K. (2023). A genealogy of reasonableness. Mind, 132(525): 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, T. R., & Mouritsen, S. C. (2018). Judging ordinary meaning. The Yale Law Journal, 127(4): 788–879.Google Scholar

Lee, T. R., & Mouritsen, S. C. (2021). The corpus and the critics. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(2): 275–366.Google Scholar

Lidén, M. (2023). Confirmation bias in criminal cases. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lidén, M., Gräns, M., & Juslin, P. (2018). The presumption of guilt in suspect interrogations: Apprehension as a trigger of confirmation bias and debiasing techniques. Law and Human Behavior, 42: 336–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lidén, M., Gräns, M., & Juslin, P. (2019). “Guilty, no doubt”: Detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(3): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lilleberg, J., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Support vector machines and Word2vec for text classification with semantic features. Proceedings of 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing, ICCI*CC 2015: 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macleod, J. A. (2015). Belief states in criminal law. Oklahoma Law Review, 68: 497.Google Scholar

Margoni, F., & Brown, T. R. (2023). Jurors use mental state information to assess breach in negligence cases. Cognition, 236: 105442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Miller, A. D., & Perry, R. (2012). The reasonable person. New York University Law Review, 87: 323.Google Scholar

Mott, C., & Heiphetz, L. (2023). Mens rea in criminal cases: How contrast affects attribution of culpable mental states. In preparation.Google Scholar

Mouritsen, S. C. (2010). The dictionary is not a fortress: Definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2010: 1915.Google Scholar

Murray, S., Krasich, K., Irving, Z., Nadelhoffer, T., & De Brigard, F. (2023). Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152: 120–138.Google ScholarPubMed

Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical Explorations, 9(2): 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nobes, G., & Martin, J. W. (2022). They should have known better: The roles of negligence and outcome in moral judgements of accidental actions. British Journal of Psychology, 113(2): 370–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nyarko, J., & Sanga, S. (2022). A statistical test for legal interpretation: Theory and applications. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 38(2): 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Prochownik, K. (2021). The experimental philosophy of law: New ways, old questions, and how not to get lost. Philosophy Compass, 16(12): e12791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prochownik, K., Feiertag, R., Horvath, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2025). How much harm does it take? An experimental study on legal expertise, the severity effect, and intentionality ascriptions. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 24 of this volume.Google Scholar

Prochownik, K., Krebs, M., Wiegmann, A., & Horvath, J. (2020). Not as bad as painted? Legal expertise, intentionality ascription, and outcome effects revisited. 42nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 42: 1930–1936.Google Scholar

Qi, P., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Bolton, J., & Manning, C. D. (2020). Stanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. Association for Computational Linguistics System Demonstrations: 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rensbergen, B. V., Deyne, S. D., & Storms, G. (2016). Estimating affective word covariates using word association data. Behavior Research Methods, 48: 1644–1652.Google ScholarPubMed

Reuter, K., Baumgartner, L., & Willemsen, P. (2024). Tracing thick and thin concepts through corpora. Language and Cognition, 16(2): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, D. (2013). Thick concepts. Philosophy Compass, 8(8): 677–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skoczeń, I., & Smywiński-Pohl, A. (2022). The context of mistrust: Perjury ascriptions in the courtroom. In Horn, L. R. (Ed.), From lying to perjury (pp. 309–352). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Spamann, H., & Klöhn, L. (2016). Justice is less blind, and less legalistic, than we thought: Evidence from an experiment with real judges. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2): 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stern, S. (2023). From Clapham to Salina: Locating the reasonable man. Law & Literature, 36(3): 391–417.Google Scholar

Struchiner, N., Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de, & Hannikainen, I. R. (2020a). Legal decision-making and the abstract/concrete paradox. Cognition, 205: 104421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Struchiner, N., Hannikainen, I. R., & Almeida, G. da F. C. F. de (2020b). An experimental guide to vehicles in the park. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3): 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sytsma, J. (2019). The character of causation: Investigating the impact of character, knowledge, and desire on causal attributions. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16739/Google Scholar

Tappolet, C. (2004). Through thick and thin: Good and its determinates. Dialectica, 58(2): 207–221.Google Scholar

Tilley, C. C. (2016). Tort law inside out. Yale Law Journal, 126: 1320.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2018). How people judge what is reasonable. Alabama Law Review, 70: 293.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2020). Testing ordinary meaning. Harvard Law Review, 134: 726.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2021a). Law and the cognitive science of ordinary concepts. In Brozek, B., Hage, J., & Vincent, N. (Eds.), Law and mind: A survey of law and the cognitive sciences (pp. 86–96). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. (2021b). The corpus and the courts. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 2021: 1.Google Scholar

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

Tobia, K. (2023). Legal concepts and legal expertise. Synthese.Google Scholar

Toshevska, M., Stojanovska, F., & Kalajdjieski, J. (2020). Comparative analysis of word embeddings for capturing word similarities. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (NATP 2020): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Unikel, R. (1992). Reasonable doubts: A critique of the reasonable woman standard in American jurisprudence. Northwestern University Law Review, 87: 326.Google Scholar

Väyrynen, P. (2011). Thick concepts and variability. Philosopher’s Imprint, 11: 1–17.Google Scholar

Väyrynen, P. (2012). Thick concepts: Where’s evaluation? In Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 7, pp. 235–270). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Väyrynen, P. (2013). The lewd, the rude and the nasty: A study of thick concepts in ethics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Väyrynen, P. (2021). Thick ethical concepts. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thick-ethical-concepts/Google Scholar

Võ, M. L. H., Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Urton, K., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009). The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods, 41: 534–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Willemsen, P., & Reuter, K. (2021). Separating the evaluative from the descriptive: An empirical study of thick concepts. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 10: 135–146.Google Scholar

Willemsen, P., Baumgartner, L., Frohofer, S., & Reuter, K. (2023). Examining evaluativity in legal discourse: A comparative corpus-linguistic study of thick concepts. In Prochownik, K., & Magen, S. (Eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of law (pp. 192–214). Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar

Zalesne, D. (1996). Intersection of socioeconomic class and gender in hostile housing environment claims under Title VIII: Who is the reasonable person? Boston College Law Review, 38: 861.Google Scholar

Zeldes, A., & Zhang, S. (2016). When annotation schemes change rules help: A configurable approach to coreference resolution beyond OntoNotes. Proceedings of the Workshop on Coreference Resolution beyond OntoNotes: 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zipursky, B. C. (2015). Reasonableness in and out of negligence law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163: 2131–2170.Google Scholar

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

Alicke, M. D., & Rose, D. (2012). Culpable control and causal deviance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 723–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almeida, G. D. F., Struchiner, N., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2023). Rule is a dual character concept. Cognition, 230, 105259.Google Scholar

Bear, A., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality: Part descriptive, part prescriptive. Cognition, 167, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2022). How causal structure, causal strength, and foreseeability affect moral judgments. Cognition, 226, 105167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geistfeld, M. A. (2020). Proximate cause untangled. Maryland Law Review, 80, 420.Google Scholar

Gerstenberg, T., & Stephan, S. (2021). A counterfactual simulation model of causation by omission. Cognition, 216, 104842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gill, M., Kominsky, J. F., Icard, T. F., & Knobe, J. (2022). An interaction effect of norm violations on causal judgment. Cognition, 228, 105183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hart, H. L. A., & Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henne, P., Niemi, L., Pinillos, Á., De Brigard, F., & Knobe, J. (2019). A counterfactual explanation for the action effect in causal judgment. Cognition, 190, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Henne, P., O’Neill, K., Bello, P., Khemlani, S., & De Brigard, F. (2021a). Norms affect prospective causal judgments. Cognitive Science, 45(1), e12931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henne, P., Kulesza, A., Perez, K., & Houcek, A. (2021b). Counterfactual thinking and recency effects in causal judgment. Cognition, 212, 104708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hesslow, G. (1988). The problem of causal selection. In Hilton, D. J. (Ed.), Contemporary Science and Natural Explanation: Commonsense Conceptions of Causality (pp. 11–32). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Hilton, D. J., McClure, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2010). Selecting explanations from causal chains: Do statistical principles explain preferences for voluntary causes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, C., & Knobe, J. (2009). Cause and norm. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(11), 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Icard, T. F., Kominsky, J. F., & Knobe, J. (2017). Normality and actual causal strength. Cognition, 161, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Iliev, R. I., Sachdeva, S., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Moral kinematics: The role of physical factors in moral judgments. Memory & Cognition, 40(8), 1387–1401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jiménez, F. (2022). The limits of experimental jurisprudence. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 5 of this volume.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. T., & Drobny, J. (1985). Proximity biases in the attribution of civil liability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keeton, R. (1963). Legal Cause in the Law of Torts. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Kirfel, L., & Lagnado, D. (2021). Causal judgments about atypical actions are influenced by agents’ epistemic states. Cognition, 212, 104721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kirfel, L., Icard, T., & Gerstenberg, T. (2022). Inference from explanation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(7), 148.Google ScholarPubMed

Knobe, J., & Fraser, B. (2008). Causal judgment and moral judgment: Two experiments. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity (pp. 441–448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (2021). Proximate cause explained. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(1), 165–236.Google Scholar

Kominsky, J. F., & Phillips, J. (2019). Immoral professors and malfunctioning tools: Counterfactual relevance accounts explain the effect of norm violations on causal selection. Cognitive Science, 43(11), e12792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kominsky, J. F., Phillips, J., Gerstenberg, T., Lagnado, D., & Knobe, J. (2015). Causal superseding. Cognition, 137, 196–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kwon, J., Tenenbaum, J., & Levine, S. (2022). Flexibility in moral cognition: When is it okay to break the rules? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44, 905–911.Google Scholar

Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108(3), 754–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Livengood, J., & Sytsma, J. (2020). Actual causation and compositionality. Philosophy of Science, 87(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/706085CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lombrozo, T. (2010). Causal–explanatory pluralism: How intentions, functions, and mechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 303–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McClure, J., Hilton, D. J., & Sutton, R. M. (2007). Judgments of voluntary and physical causes in causal chains: Probabilistic and social functionalist criteria for attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 879–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLaughlin, J. A. (1925). Proximate cause. Harvard Law Review, 39(2), 149–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morris, A., Phillips, J. S., Icard, T., Knobe, J., Gerstenberg, T., & Cushman, F. (2018). Causal judgments approximate the effectiveness of future interventions, https://psyarxiv.com/nq53z/CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Perales, J. C., Catena, A., Cándido, A., & Maldonado, A. (2017). Rules of causal judgment: Mapping statistical information onto causal beliefs. In Waldmann, M. R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning (pp. 29–51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Phillips, J., & Cushman, F. (2017). Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(18), 4649–4654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Phillips, J., Luguri, J. B., & Knobe, J. (2015). Unifying morality’s influence on non-moral judgments: The relevance of alternative possibilities. Cognition, 145, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Prochownik, K. (2021). The experimental philosophy of law: New ways, old questions, and how not to get lost. Philosophy Compass, 16(12), e12791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prochownik, K. (2022). Causation in the law, and experimental philosophy. In Willemsen, P., & Wiegmann, A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Causation (pp. 165–188). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, P. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar

Reuter, K., Kirfel, L., Van Riel, R., & Barlassina, L. (2014). The good, the bad, and the timely: How temporal order and moral judgment influence causal selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rizzo, M. J. (1980). The imputation theory of proximate cause: An economic framework. Georgia Law Review, 15, 1007.Google Scholar

Samland, J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2016). How prescriptive norms influence causal inferences. Cognition, 156, 164–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sommers, R. (2021). Experimental jurisprudence. Science, 373(6553), 394–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sosa, F. A., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J. B., Gershman, S. J., & Gerstenberg, T. (2021). Moral dynamics: Grounding moral judgment in intuitive physics and intuitive psychology. Cognition, 217, 104890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Spellman, B. A. (1997). Crediting causality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 323–348.Google Scholar

Stephan, S., Willemsen, P., & Gerstenberg, T. (2017). Marbles in inaction: Counterfactual simulation and causation by omission. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1132–1137.Google Scholar

Struchiner, N., Hannikainen, I. R., & de Almeida, G. D. F. (2020). An experimental guide to vehicles in the park. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3), 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tobia, K. P. (2018). How people judge what is reasonable. Alabama Law Review, 70, 293.Google Scholar

Tobia, K. P. (2021). Law and the cognitive science of ordinary concepts. In Brożek, B., Haage, J., & Vincent, N. (Eds.), Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 86–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Wiegmann, A., Samland, J., & Waldmann, M. R. (2016). Lying despite telling the truth. Cognition, 150, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Willemsen, P., & Kirfel, L. (2019). Recent empirical work on the relationship between causal judgements and norms. Philosophy Compass, 14(1), e12562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woodward, J. (2014). A functional account of causation; or, a defense of the legitimacy of causal thinking by reference to the only standard that matters – usefulness (as opposed to metaphysics or agreement with intuitive judgment). Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woodward, J. (2022). Mysteries of actual causation: It’s complicated. In Willemsen, P., & Wiegmann, A. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Causation (pp. 35–61). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Zipursky, B. C. (2009). Foreseeability in breach, duty, and proximate cause. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 1247.Google Scholar

Barker, M. A. (1983). The doctrines of specification and accession: Potential bases for legal ownership through labor? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X8300400102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blackstone, S. (1753). Commentaries on the laws of England in four books, Vol. 1. J. B. Lippincott. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/sharswood-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1Google Scholar

Bowman-Smith, C. K., Goulding, B. W., & Friedman, O. (2018). Children hold owners responsible when property causes harm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(8), 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000429Google ScholarPubMed

Bregant, J. (2024). Intuitive jurisprudence: What experimental jurisprudence can learn from developmental science. In Tobia, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bregant, J., Wellbery, I., & Shaw, A. (2019). Crime but not punishment? Children are more lenient toward rule-breaking when the “spirit of the law” is unbroken. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178, 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.09.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, F. S. (1954). Dialogue on private property. Rutgers Law Review, 9(2), 357–387.Google Scholar

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., Fischer, K., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48(1–2), 124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165935CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demaree-Cotton, J., & Sommers, R. (2022). Autonomy and the folk concept of valid consent. Cognition, 224, 105065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DeScioli, P., & Karpoff, R. (2015). People’s judgments about classic property law cases. Human Nature, 26(2), 184–209. doi: 10.1007/s12110-015-9230-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

DeScioli, P., Karpoff, R., & De Freitas, J. (2017). Ownership dilemmas: The case of finders versus landowners. Cognitive Science, 41(S3), 502–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12486CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Echelbarger, M., Roberts, S. O., & Gelman, S. A. (2022). Children’s concern for equity and ownership in contexts of individual-based and group-based inequality. Journal of Cognition and Development, 23(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2021.1956931CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eisenberg-Berg, N., Haake, R., Hand, M., & Sadalla, E. (1979). Effects of instructions concerning ownership of a toy on preschoolers’ sharing and defensive behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 460–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.4.460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elenbaas, L. (2019). Young children’s reasoning about equality and ownership in resource conflicts. Cognitive Development, 52, 100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100808CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellickson, R. C. (1989). A hypothesis of wealth-maximizing norms: Evidence from the whaling industry. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 5(1), 83–97.Google Scholar

Espinosa, J., & Starmans, C. (2020). Control it and it is yours: Children’s reasoning about the ownership of living things. Cognition, 202, 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Essler, S., & Paulus, M. (2021). Robin Hood or Matthew? Children’s reasoning about redistributive justice in the context of economic inequalities. Child Development, 92(4), 1254–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feltz, A., & May, J. (2017). The means/side-effect distinction in moral cognition: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 166, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Furby, L. (1978). Possession in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 6(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1978.6.1.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gold, N., Pulford, B. D., & Colman, A. M. (2013). Your money or your life: Comparing judgements in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury and death. Economics & Philosophy, 29(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267113000205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goulding, B. W., & Friedman, O. (2018). The development of territory-based inferences of ownership. Cognition, 177, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hook, J. (1993). Judgments about the right to property from preschool to adulthood. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01044542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jambon, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2014). Moral complexity in middle childhood: Children’s evaluations of necessary harm. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032992CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kanngiesser, P., Gjersoe, N., & Hood, B. M. (2010). The effect of creative labor on property-ownership transfer by preschool children and adults. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1236–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610380701CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B. M. (2014). Not by labor alone: Considerations for value influence use of the labor rule in ownership transfers. Cognitive Science, 38(2), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kanngiesser, P., Itakura, S., & Hood, B. M. (2014). The effect of labour on ownership decisions in two cultures: Developmental evidence from Japan and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Katz, L. (2008). Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(3), 275–315. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.58.3.275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63(3), 190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levine, S., & Leslie, A. M. (2022). Preschoolers use the means principle in their moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(11), 2893–2909. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001221Google ScholarPubMed

Levine, S., Mikhail, J., & Leslie, A. M. (2018). Presumed innocent? How tacit assumptions of intentional structure shape moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1728–1747. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000459Google ScholarPubMed

Li, Z., Ni, X., Zhu, L., & Li, J. (2021). Chinese preschoolers’ ownership reasoning based on first possession heuristic. PloS One, 16(12), e0260335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Li, Z., Zhu, L., Wan, Y., Li, J., & Yu, J. (2020). Effect of transfer type on labor’s role in ownership judgments. PsyCh Journal, 9(4), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDermott, C. H., & Noles, N. S. (2018). The role of age, theory of mind, and linguistic ability in children’s understanding of ownership. PloS One, 13(10), e0206591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206591CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Merrill, T. W. (1998). Property and the right to exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 77(4), 730–755.Google Scholar

Merrill, T. W. (2009). Accession and original ownership. Journal of Legal Analysis, 1(2), 459–510. doi: 10.1093/jla/1.2.459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Millar, J. C., Turri, J., & Friedman, O. (2014). For the greater goods? Ownership rights and utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 133(1), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morewedge, C. K. (2021). Psychological ownership: Implicit and explicit. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Nancekivell, S. E., Friedman, O., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). Ownership matters: People possess a naïve theory of ownership. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neary, K. R., & Friedman, O. (2014). Young children give priority to ownership when judging who should use an object. Child Development, 85(1), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Neary, K. R., Friedman, O., & Burnstein, C. L. (2009). Preschoolers infer ownership from “control of permission.” Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 873–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014088CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, S., & Mallon, R. (2006). Moral dilemmas and moral rules. Cognition, 100(3), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Noles, N. S., Keil, F. C., Bloom, P., & Gelman, S. A. (2012). Children’s and adults’ intuitions about who can own things. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 12(3–4), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Peñalver, E. M. (2010). The illusory right to abandon. Michigan Law Review, 109(2), 191–219.Google Scholar

Penner, J. E. (1996). The “bundle of rights” picture of property. UCLA Law Review, 43(3), 711–820.Google Scholar

Pesowski, M. L., Nancekivell, S. E., Tasimi, A., & Friedman, O. (2022). Ownership and value in childhood. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-041124CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, H. S. (2013). Effects of ownership rights on conflicts between toddler peers. Infancy, 18(2), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00121.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt, M. F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Young children understand and defend the entitlements of others. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4), 930–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shaw, A., Li, V., & Olson, K. R. (2012). Children apply principles of physical ownership to ideas. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 1383–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01265.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shoked, N. (2014). The duty to maintain. Duke Law Journal, 64, 437–513.Google Scholar

Simons, K. W. (2018). Self-defense, necessity, and the duty to compensate, in law and morality. San Diego Law Review, 55(2), 357–380.Google Scholar

Smith, H. E. (2012). Property as the law of things. Harvard Law Review, 125(7), 1691–1726.Google Scholar

Snare, F. (1972). The concept of property. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9(2), 200–206.Google Scholar

Stake, J. E. (2004). The property ‘instinct’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359(1451), 1763–1774. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1551Google ScholarPubMed

Starmans, C., & Friedman, O. (2016). If I am free, you can’t own me: Autonomy makes entities less ownable. Cognition, 148, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stonehouse, E. E., & Friedman, O. (2021). Unsolicited but acceptable: Non-owners can access property if the owner benefits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000877Google ScholarPubMed

Stonehouse, E. E., & Friedman, O. (2022). Attributing ownership to hold others accountable. Cognition, 225, 105106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van de Vondervoort, J. W., & Friedman, O. (2015). Parallels in preschoolers’ and adults’ judgments about ownership rights and bodily rights. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yaron, R. (1966). The goring ox in Near Eastern laws. Israel Law Review, 1(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700013881CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aalto-Heinila, M. (2023). Purposivism. In: Sellers, M. & Kirste, S. (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_1124-1.Google Scholar

Almeida, G., Struchiner, N. & Hannikainen, I. (2023a). The experimental jurisprudence of the concept of rule: Implications for the Hart-Fuller debate. Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Law. 10.13140/RG.2.2.17896.55041CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almeida, G., Struchiner, N. & Hannikainen, I. (2023b). Rule is a dual character concept. Cognition, 230: 105259.Google Scholar

Almeida, G., Struchiner, N. & Hannikainen, I. (2025). Rules. In: Tobia, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 11 of this volume.Google Scholar

Barrett, A. C. (2017). Congressional insiders and outsiders. The University of Chicago Law Review, 84: 2193–2211.Google Scholar

Bertea, S. (2021). Social-practice legal positivism and the normativity thesis. In: Spaak, T. & Mindus, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism (pp. 397–418). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bregant, J., Wellbery, I. & Shaw, A. (2019). Crime but not punishment? Children are more lenient toward rule-breaking when the “spirit of the law” is unbroken. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178: 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).Google Scholar

Cohen, A. (2019). Influencing and challenging judges and their decisions in child welfare cases. American Bar Association. www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/january---december-2019/influencing-and-challenging-judges-and-their-decisions-in-child-/.Google Scholar

Coleman, J. I. (1998). Incorporationism, conventionality, and the practical difference thesis. Legal Theory, 4(4): 381–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooter, R. (1998). Expressive law and economics. The Journal of Legal Studies, 27(S2): 585–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crawford, V. (1998). A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic Theory, 78(2): 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cross, J. M. & Gluck, A. R. (2020). The congressional bureaucracy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 168(6): 1541–1683.Google Scholar

Cummins, R. (1998). Reflection on reflective equilibrium. In: DePaul, M. & Ramsey, W. (eds.), Rethinking Intuition (pp. 113–128). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

den Hartog, G. (2002). Mutual Expectations. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Dunlea, J. P. & Heiphetz, L. (2021). Moral psychology as a necessary bridge between social cognition and law. Social Cognition, 39(1): 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Eskridge, E. (2016). Interpreting Law: A Primer on How to Read Statutes and the Constitution. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Eskridge, E., Slocum, B. & Tobia, K. (2023). Textualism’s defining moment. Columbia Law Review, 123(6): 1611–1698.Google Scholar

Farnsworth, W., Guzior, D. & Malani, A. (2010). Ambiguity about ambiguity: An empirical inquiry into legal interpretation. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(1): 257–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finnis, J. (1989). Law as co-ordination. Ratio Juris, 2: 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flanagan, B., de Almeida, G. F., Struchiner, N. & Hannikainen, I. R. (2023). Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations. Law and Human Behavior, 47(2): 367–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Franklin, C. (2020). Living textualism. Supreme Court Review, 2020(1): 119–195.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. (1964). The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Gales, T. & Solan, L. (2020). Revisiting a classic problem in statutory interpretation: Is a minister a laborer? Georgia State University Law Review, 36: 491–523 (2019–2020).Google Scholar

Garcia, S. M., Chen, P. & Gordon, M. T. (2014). The letter versus the spirit of the law: A lay perspective on culpability. Judgment & Decision Making, 9(5): 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, L. (1983). Law, co-ordination and the common good. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 3: 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grove, T. (2020). Which textualism? Harvard Law Review, 135(1): 265.Google Scholar

Guastini, R. (2019). An analytical foundation of rule-scepticism. In: Duarte, D., Lopes, P. M. & Sampaio, J. S. (eds.), Legal Interpretation and Scientific Knowledge (pp. 13–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hannikainen, I. R., Tobia, K. P., Almeida, G. et al. (2021). Are there cross‐cultural legal principles? Modal reasoning uncovers procedural constraints on law. Cognitive Science, 45(8): e13024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hannikainen, I. R., Tobia, K. P., Almeida, G. et al. (2022). Coordination and expertise foster legal textualism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(44): e2206531119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hart, H. M. & Sacks, A. M. (1958). The Legal Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Holmes, Jr., O. W. (1897). The path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 10: 457.Google Scholar

Jiménez, F. (2025). The Limits of Experimental Jurisprudence. In: Tobia, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 5 of this volume.Google Scholar

Lagerspetz, E. (1995). The Opposite Mirrors: An Essay on the Conventionalist Theory of Institutions (Vol. 22). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Macleod, J. (2025). Surveys and Experiments in Statutory Interpretation. In: Tobia, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See Chapter 12 of this volume.Google Scholar

Manning, J. (2006). What divides textualists from purposivists. Columbia Law Review, 106(1): 70–111.Google Scholar

Marmor, A. (2005). The immorality of textualism. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 38: 2063–2079.Google Scholar

Marmor, A. (2006). How law is like chess. Legal Theory, 12(4): 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAdams, R. H. (2000). A focal point theory of expressive law. Virginia Law Review, 86(8): 1649–1729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAdams, R. H. (2009). Beyond the prisoners’ dilemma: Coordination, game theory, and law. Southern California Law Review, 82: 209–258.Google Scholar

McAdams, R. H. & Nadler, J. (2005). Testing the focal point theory of legal compliance: The effect of third‐party expression in an experimental Hawk/Dove Game. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1): 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAdams, R. H. & Nadler, J. (2008). Coordinating in the shadow of the law: Two contextualized tests of the focal point theory of legal compliance. Law & Society Review, 42(4): 865–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Molot, J. (2006). The rise and fall of textualism. Columbia Law Review, 106: 1.Google Scholar

Nadler, J. (2017). Expressive law, social norms, and social groups. Law & Social Inquiry, 42: 60–75. 10.1111/lsi.12279CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nourse, V. (2019). Textualism 3.0: Statutory interpretation after Justice Scalia. Alabama Law Review, 70: 667–685.Google Scholar

Postema, G. J. (1980). Bentham and Dworkin on positivism and adjudication. Social Theory and Practice, 5(3/4): 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Postema, G. J. (1982). Coordination and convention at the foundations of law. The Journal of Legal Studies, 111(1): 165–203.Google Scholar

Postema, G. J. (1998). Conventions at the Foundations of Law. In: Newman, P. (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law (pp. 478–484). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Scalia, A. (1997). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Schauer, F. (1990). Statutory construction and the coordinating function of plain meaning. Supreme Court Review, 1990: 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schauer, F. (1991). Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Skyrms, B. (2003). The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Solan, L. M. (2003). Jurors as statutory interpreters. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(3): 1281–1318.Google Scholar

Struchiner, N., Hannikainen, I. & Almeida, G. (2020). An experimental guide to vehicles in the park. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3): 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tamanaha, B. Z. (2021). Disruptive implications of legal positivism’s social efficacy thesis. In: Spaak, T. & Mindus, P. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism (pp. 512–535). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Tobia, K. & Mikhail, J. (2020). Two types of empirical textualism. Brooklyn Law Review, 86(2): 461.Google Scholar

Tobia, K., Slocum, B. G. & Nourse, V. (2022). Progressive textualism. Georgetown Law Journal, 110(6): 1437–1493.Google Scholar

Troper, M. (2021). A causal view of judicial interpretation. In: Chiassoni, P. & Spaić, B. (eds.), Judges and Adjudication in Constitutional Democracies: A View from Legal Realism (pp. 111–122). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Waldron, J. (1999). Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Załuski, W. (2013). Game Theory in Jurisprudence. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar

Baude, W. & Sachs, S. E. (2017). The law of interpretation. Harvard Law Review, 130, 1079–1147. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3627.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Order No. 7914150). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (302925499). www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/on-comprehending-sentences-syntactic-parsing/docview/302925499/se-2Google Scholar

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370.Google ScholarPubMed

Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldfarb, N. (2012). Last antecedents, series qualifiers, and psycholinguistics. LAWnLinguistics.com. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2012/10/08/last-antecedents-series-qualifiers-and-psycholingstics/#more-612Google Scholar

Goldfarb, N. (2015). Coming to SCOTUS: Battle of the dueling interpretive canons. LAWnLinguistics.com. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2015/10/27/coming-to-scotus-battle-of-the-dueling-interpretive-canons/.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, N. (2016). The rule of the last antecedent is really old. LAWnLinguistics.com. https://tinyurl.com/lawnling2016-09-25.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, N. (2018 Updated) Corpora and the Second Amendment. LAWnLinguistics.com. https://lawnlinguistics.com/corpora-and-the-second-amendment/.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, N. (2020a). Robocalls, legal interpretation, and Bryan Garner (the first in a series). LAWnLinguistics.com. https://tinyurl.com/lawnling2020-12-03.Google Scholar