Algebraic Schemes in Legal Thought and in Everyday Morality

  • Wilfried Hommers
  • Norman H. Anderson
Part of the Research in Criminology book series (RESEARCH CRIM.)


Legal thought may have unique value for cognitive science. A primary characteristic of legal thought is its focus on valuation and integration of evidence. Even simple cases typically involve multiple pieces of evidence, each of which has to be evaluated for its implications with respect to the judgment to be made, and all of which have to be integrated to arrive at an overall judgment. In this respect, legal thought is similar to psychological decision theory, which is also concerned with valuation and integration of information.


Solid Curf Personal Design Penal Code Average Rule Integration Rule 
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. Anderson, N.H. (1976). Social perception and cognition (Tech. Rep. CHIP 62). San Diego: La Jolla: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N.H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N.H. (1983). Psychodynamics of everyday life: blaming and avoiding blame (Tech. Rep. CHIP 120). San Diego: La Jolla: Center for Human Information Processing. University of California.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, G. (1984). Der Strafzumessungsvorgang als stufenweise Konkretisierung des gesetzlichen Strafrahmens. Mannheim: Jur. Diss.Google Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1967). When does a harmdoer compensate a victim? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 435–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruns, H. J. (1974). Strafzumessungsrecht. Gesamtdarstellung (2nd. ed.). Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  8. Bruns, H. J. (1980). Leitfaden des Strafzumessungsrechts. Cologne: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  9. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1975). Decision making and information integration in the courts. The setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 805–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data Vol. 1. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Hommers, W. (1981). Recht und Psychologie: ein wechselseitiges Verhältnis. In W. Michaelis (Ed.), Bericht über den 32. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Zürich 1980 (pp. 699–704 ). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  12. Hommers, W. ( 1983 a). Zur quantitativen Theorie von Wiedergutmachungskognitionen unter Gewinnung ihrer Grundmerkmale aus der Jurisprudenz. In G. Liier (Ed.), Bericht über den 33. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Mainz 1982 (pp. 588–595 ). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Hommers, W. ( 1983 b). Die Entwicklungspsychologie der Delikts-und Geschäftsfähigkeit. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  14. Hommers, W. (1985). Recht und Psychologie: ein wechselseitiges Verhältnis–zur Gegenstandsbestimmung der Rechtspsychologie. Universitas, 39, 1323–1332.Google Scholar
  15. Hommers, W. (1986). Ist „Voller Ersatz“ immer „Adäquater Ersatz?” Zu einer Diskrepanz zwischen Regelungen des Gesetzbuches im EXODUS und der Adäquatheits-These der Equity-Theorie. Psychologische Beiträge, 28, 164–179.Google Scholar
  16. Hommers, W. (1988). Implizite Willenstheorien des rechtlichen Denkens aus empirisch-psychologischer Perspektive. In H. Heckhausen, F. Weinert, & F. E. Gollwitzer (Eds.), Wollen und Handeln. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hommers, W. (in press). Implicit phsychological theories of legal thought on sentence and liability. In P. J. Van Koppen, & D. J. Hessing (Eds.), Lawyers on psychology and psychologists on law. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  18. Hommers, W., & Anderson, N.H. (1985). Recompense as a factor in assigned punishment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hommers, W., & Anderson, N.H. (in preparation). Moral algebra of harm and recompense. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (Eds.). (1982). The criminal justice system: a social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  20. Leon, M. (1980). Integration of intent and consequence information in children’s moral judgments. In F. Wilkening, J. Becker, & R. Trabasso (Eds.), Information integration by children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Maurach, R., Gössel, K. H., & Zipf, H. (1978). Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil: Part 2 ( 5th ed. ). Heidelberg: Müller.Google Scholar
  22. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Surber, C.F. (1982). Separable effects of motives, consequences, and presentation order on children’s moral judgments. Developmental Psychology, 18, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas, D. A. (1970). Principles of sentencing. The sentencing policy of the court of appeal criminal division. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  25. Von Linstow, B. (1974). Berechenbares Strafmaß. Berlin: Schweitzer.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, G. (1984). Behavioral decision theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Zipf, H. (1977). Die Strafzumessung. München: Beck.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilfried Hommers
  • Norman H. Anderson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations