Search
Now showing items 1-5 of 5
Emotional Common Sense as Constitutional Law
(Vanderbilt Law Review, 2009)
In Gonzales v. Carhart the Supreme Court invoked post-abortion regret to justify a ban on a particular abortion procedure. The Court was proudly folk-psychological, representing its observations about women's emotional ...
The Impact of the Impact Bias on Negotiation
(Marquette Law Review, 2004)
The theory of principled or problem-solving negotiation assumes that negotiators are able to identify their interests (or what they really want) in a negotiation. Recent research on effective forecasting calls this assumption ...
Angry Judges
(Vanderbilt Law Review, 2012)
Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the ...
Risk Realization, Emotion, and Policy Making
(Missouri Law Review, 2004)
In their study of terrorism and SARS, Professor Feigenson and his colleagues report "significant positive correlations between people's risk perceptions and their negative affect." In their review of the judgment and ...
Better Settle than Sorry: The Regret Aversion Theory of Litigation Behavior
(University of Illinois Law Review, 1999)
Legal scholars have developed two dominant theories of litigation behavior: the Economic Theory of Suit and Settlement,which is based on expected utility theory, and the Framing Theory of Litigation, which is based on ...