Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 219–227 | Cite as

Do a Law’s Policy Implications Affect Beliefs About Its Constitutionality? An Experimental Test

  • Joshua R. Furgeson
  • Linda Babcock
  • Peter M. Shane
Original Article


Although a substantial empirical literature has found associations between judges’ political orientation and their judicial decisions, the nature of the relationship between policy preferences and constitutional reasoning remains unclear. In this experimental study, law students were asked to determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical law, where the policy implications of the law were manipulated while holding all legal evidence constant. The data indicate that, even with an incentive to select the ruling best supported by the legal evidence, liberal participants were more likely to overturn laws that decreased taxes than laws that increased taxes. The opposite pattern held for conservatives. The experimental manipulation significantly affected even those participants who believed their policy preferences had no influence on their constitutional decisions.


Constitutional decisions Legal decision-making Motivated reasoning Policy preferences Judicial review 



We thank Jeff Dominitz, Daniel Feiler, Gary Franko, Joan Kiel, Jennifer Lerner, Carlos Raad, George Taylor, William Vogt, and Kai Zheng.


  1. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85, 1337–1343.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S., Jennings, K., Inglehart, R., & Farah, B. (1988). Party identification and party closeness in comparative perspective. Political Behavior, 10, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, L. (1998). The puzzle of judicial behavior (analytical perspectives on politics). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bork, R. (1990). The tempting of America: The political seduction of the law. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bower, A., & Burkett, G. (1987). Family physicians and generic drugs: A study of recognition, information sources, prescribing attitudes, and practice. Journal of Family Practice, 24, 612–616.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Braman, E. (2006). Reasoning on the threshold: Testing the separability of preferences in legal decision making. The Journal of Politics, 68, 308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braman, E., & Nelson, T. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. Working Paper. Department of Political Science, University of Indiana (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Buchman, T., Tetlock, P., & Reed, R. (1996). Accountability and auditors’ judgment about contingent events. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, S. (1992). Judging in good faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cardozo, B. (1949). The nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Caudill, S., Johnson, M., Rich, E., & McKinney, P. (1996). Physicians, pharmaceutical sales representatives, and the cost of prescribing. Archives of Family Medicine, 5, 201–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, F. (1997). Political science and the new legal realism. Northwestern University Law Review, 92, 251–326.Google Scholar
  13. Cuccia, A., Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. (1995). The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review, 70, 227–248.Google Scholar
  14. Dana, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 252–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, M. (1997). Positive test strategies and confirmatory retrieval processes in the evaluation of personality feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 574–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawson, E., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. (2002). Motivated reasoning and performance on the Wason selection task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1379–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ditto, P., & Lopez, D. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ditto, P., Scepansky, J., Munro, G., Apanovitch, A. M., & Lockhart, L. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frank, J. (1970). Law and the modern mind. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  22. Furgeson, J., Babcock, L., & Shane, P. (2007). Behind the mask of method: Political orientation and constitutional interpretive preferences. Under review.Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton, A. (1788, June 14). Federalist no. 78. Independent Journal.Google Scholar
  24. Hsee, C. (1996). Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis-testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein, W., & Kunda, Z. (1993). Maintaining self-serving social comparisons: Biased reconstruction of one’s past behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 732–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 59–148). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundgren, S., & Prislin, R. (1998). Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDonald, H., & Hirt, E. (1997). When expectancy meets desire: Motivation effects in reconstructive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 5–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinello, D. (2001). Linking party to judicial ideology in American courts: A meta-Analysis. Justice System Journal, 20, 219–254.Google Scholar
  35. Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 297–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Redding, R., & Reppucci, D. (1999). Effects of lawyers’ socio-political attitudes on their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rehnquist, W. (1976). The notion of a living constitution. University of Texas Law Review, 54, 693–706.Google Scholar
  38. Runyon, R. P., & Haber, A. (1988). Fundamentals of behavioral statistics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Sanitoso, R., Kunda, Z., & Fong, G. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scalia, A. (1997). A matter of interpretation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schubert, G. (1965). The judicial mind; the attitudes and ideologies of Supreme Court justices, 1946–1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (1994). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model: The authors respond. Law and Courts, 4, 10–11.Google Scholar
  43. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (1999). Majority rule or minority will: Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Segal, J., & Spaeth, H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shapiro, S., & Levy, R. (1995). Judicial incentives and indeterminacy in substantive review of administrative decisions. Duke Law Journal, 44, 1051–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, D., Pham, L., Le, Q., & Holyoak, K. (2001). The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 1250–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sisk, G., & Heise, M. (2005). Judges and ideology: Public and academic debates about statistical measures. Northwestern University Law Review, 99, 743–803.Google Scholar
  48. Wegener, D., Kerr, N., Fleming, M., & Petty, R. (2000). Flexible correction of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wistrich, A., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua R. Furgeson
    • 1
  • Linda Babcock
    • 2
  • Peter M. Shane
    • 3
  1. 1.Argosy FoundationMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Heinz School of Public Policy and ManagementCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations