The Law and Psychology of Precedent

  • William S. Laufer
  • Steven D. Walt


The literature relating law and psychology places significant emphasis on conceptual and paradigmatic differences (Haney, 1980; Lochner, 1973; Marshall, 1966; Monahan & Loftus, 1982; Tapp, 1976). Divergent methods, reasoning, and decision making underscore allegations of disciplinary incompatibility (cf. Melton, 1987; Monahan & Walker, 1988). A prime example of this incompatibility, it has been argued, may be found in psychology’s devotion to the scientific method in explanation and the law’s reliance on precedent in judicial decision making. Psychology emphasizes creative and innovative research, unhampered by the constraints imposed by precedent and history. As Haney (1980) has observed, in psychology “there is no conscious and constant attempt to link the present to the past.


Normal Science Judicial Decision Psychological Explanation Legal Duty Prior Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Achenbach, T.M. (1978). Research in developmental psychology: Concepts, strategies, methods. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, B. (1984). Reconstruction american law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ala. Code 1975 §12–3–10.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, L. (1989). Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Review, 63, 1–61.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, L.E., & Caldwell, M.E. (1963). Modern logic and judicial decision making: A sketch of one view. Law and Contemporary Problems, 28, 213–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baltes, M.M., & Reese, H.W. (1977). Operant research in violation of the operant paradigm? In B.C. Etzel, J.M. LeBlanc, & D.M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, method, and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Baltes, P.B. (1973). Prototypical paradigms and questions in life-span research on development and aging. Gerontologist, 13, 458–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134, 596–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett, F.C. (1967). Remembering: A Study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blume, L.E., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1982) The dynamics of the legal process. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodenhausen, G.V., & Wyer, R.S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision-making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 267–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brenner, C. (1968). Psychoanalysis and science. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 16, 675–696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cahn, E.N. (1949). The sense of injustice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, D.T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-sale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C.W. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  15. Coons, L. (1987). Consistency. California Law Review, 75, 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collier, C.W. (1988). Precedent and legal authority: A critical history. Wisconsin Law Review, 77, 771–825.Google Scholar
  17. DeMey, M. (1982). The cognitve paradigm. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  18. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eisenhowser, J.J. (1988). Four theories of precedent and its role in judicial decisions. Temple Law Review, 61, 871–877.Google Scholar
  20. Engel, G.L. (1968). Some obstacles to the development of research in psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 16, 195–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eskridge, W.N. (1988). Overruling statutory precedents. Georgetown Law Journal, 76, 1361–1439.Google Scholar
  22. Ex Parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986 (Sup. Ct. Ala., 1989).Google Scholar
  23. Eysenck, H. (1972). The experimental study of Freudian concepts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 25, 263–267.Google Scholar
  24. Freund, P. (1967). Is the law ready for human experimentation? American Psychologist, 22, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gergen, K. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstein, L. (1984). Some problems about precedent. Cambridge Law Journal, 43, 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glover, E. (1952). Research methods in psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 33, 403–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 147–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, (1940).Google Scholar
  32. Holdsworth, W.S. (1934). Case Law. Law Quarterly Review, 50, 180–192.Google Scholar
  33. James, W. (1974). Pragmatism. New York: New American Library. (Original work published 1974).Google Scholar
  34. James, W. (1950) Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1950).Google Scholar
  35. Jensen, H.L., & Horvitz, J.S. (1979). A theoretical framework for quantifying legal decisions. Juri-metrics, 15, 121–139.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1980). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelson, H. (1967). Pure theory of law. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kornhauser, L.A. (1989). An economic, perspective on stare decisis. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 65, 63–116.Google Scholar
  40. Kubie, L.S. (1960). Psychoanalysis and scientific method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 131, 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In R.C. Buck & R.S. Cohen (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  44. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lawlor, R.C. (1968). Personal stare decisis. Southern California Law Review, 41, 82–83.Google Scholar
  46. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Combs, B., & Layman, M. (1976). Perceived Frequency of Low Probability, Lethal Events, (Rep. No. 76–2). Eugene, OR: Decision Research.Google Scholar
  47. Llewellyn, K.N. (1989). The bramble bush: On our law and its study. New York: Oceana.Google Scholar
  48. Lochner, P. (1973). Some limitations on the applications of social science research in the legal process. Law and Social Order, 815–848.Google Scholar
  49. Locksley, A., Hepburn, C., & Ortiz, V. (1982). Social stereotypes and judgments of individuals: An instance of the base-rate fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maltz, E.M. (1980). Some thoughts on the death of stare decisis in consititutional law. Wisconsin Law Review, 54, 467–496.Google Scholar
  51. Maltz, E.M. (1988). The nature of precedent. North Carolina Law Review, 66, 367–393.Google Scholar
  52. Marshall, J. (1966). Law and psychology in conflict. Indianapolis, In: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  53. Marshall, L. (1989). “Let Congress do it”: The case for an absolute rule of statutory stare decisis. Michigan Law Review, 88, 177–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Masters, J.C., Yarkin-Levin, K., & Graziano, W.G. (1984). Boundary areas in psychology. In J.C. Masters & K. Yarkin-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology (pp. 1–14). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Melton, G.B. (1987). Bringing psychology to the legal system: Opportunities, obstacles, and efficacy. American Psychologist, 42, 488–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Monaghan, H.P. (1988). Stare decisis and constitutional adjudication. Columbia Law Review, 88, 723–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 226–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1986). Social authority: Obtaining, evaluating, and establishing social science in law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134, 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1988). Social science research in law: A new paradigm. American Psychologist, 43, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moore, M. (1987). Precedent, induction, and ethical generalization. In L. Goldstein (Ed.) Precedent in law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Nicholson, M. (1983). The Scientific Analysis of Social Behaviour: A Defense of Empiricism in Social Science. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  64. Nisbett, R., Krantz, D., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nisbett, R.E., and Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  66. Patterson, G.R. (1984). Microsocial process: A view from the boundary. In J.C. Masters & K. Yarkin-Levin (Eds.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. People v. Beardsley, 150 Mich. 206, 113 N.W. 1128 (1907).Google Scholar
  68. Perry, S.R. (1988). Judicial obligation, precedent and the common law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7, 215–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pound, C.W. (1922). Some recent phases of the evolution of Case Law, Yale Law Journal, 31, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Re, E.D. (1975). Stare decisis. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  71. Reese, H.W., & Overton, W.F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. In L.R. Goulet & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), Life span developmental psychology: Research and theory San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  72. Scheffler, I. (1967). Science and subjectivity. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  73. Schmitthoff, CM. (1982). Should precedents be binding? Journal of Business Law, 22, 290–303.Google Scholar
  74. Shulman, D.G. (1990). Psychoanalysis and the quantitative research tradition. Psychoanalytic Review, 77, 245–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County, 827 F. 2d 684. State v. Behm, 72 Iowa 533, 34 N.W. 319.Google Scholar
  76. State v. Smith, 65 Me. 257 (1876).Google Scholar
  77. Sternberg, R.J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stone, J. (1985). Precedent and law: Dymnamic of common law growth. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  79. Tapp, J. (1976). Psychology and law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 359–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Territory v. Manton, 8 Mont. 95, 19 Pac. 387.Google Scholar
  81. Thaler, R. (1983). Illusions and mirages in public policy. The Public Interest, 73, 60–74.Google Scholar
  82. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schémas in judgments under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  85. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1988). Social facts Scientific methodology as legal precedent. California Law Review, 76, 877–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wallerstein, R.S. (1968). Psychoanalysis as a science: A response to the new challenges. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 55, 415–451.Google Scholar
  87. Wasserstrom, R.A. (1961). The judicial decision: Toward a theory of legal justification. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Westin, P. (1982). The empty idea of equality. Harvard Law Review, 95, 537–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams, B. (1962). The idea of equality. In P. Laslett & W. Runciman (Eds.), Philosophy, politics and society (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  90. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William S. Laufer
  • Steven D. Walt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations