Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognition and the Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Cognition of the Law

  • 405 Accesses

Abstract

With the demise of nineteenth-century behavioral mechanicism came the need to chart a new course in the effort to work toward a modern theory of behavior, and so also of law-oriented behavior, and it was the whole set of mentalist and behaviorist conceptions that pointed the way forward. Ever since the Humean intuition that the passions dominate over rationality and propel the will, the idea emerged that pure subjectivity could explain much more than just its own capture of reason, but this idea couldn’t be fully developed until the analysis of mental functions found at its disposal the full arsenal of the contemporary neurosciences (Oliverio 2012) and cognitive science (Williams 2001). Neuroscience and the cognitive sciences (Anolli and Mantovani 2012, p. 84) changed the paradigm in the social sciences, too, because they showed how it was possible to bridge the gap between biology and culture, matter and mind (Pinker 2002, pp. 34, 51).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This section is an adaptation of “Framing Choices to Influence Behaviors: A Debate on the Pros and Cons of Nudging,” published in Diritto e questioni pubbliche 1(2018).

  2. 2.

    Assessing the Global Impact of the Behavioural Sciences on Public Policy (2014): https://changingbehaviours.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nudgedesignfinal.pdf, accessed on Oct. 27, 2017.

References

  • Alces, Peter A. 2018. The Moral Conflict of Law and Neuroscience. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aleo, Salvatore. 2010. Complessità e responsabilità penale. In Neodarwinismo e scienze sociali, ed. Roberto Vignera. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almodóvar, Miguel Ángel. 2015. Intestino, secondo cervello. Milano: Vallardi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato, Salvatore. 2013. A chi appartengono i miei pensieri? Neuroscienze e diritto di proprietà. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosino, Angela. 2014. A Cognitive Approach to Law and Economics: Hayek’s Legacy. Journal of Economic Issues 48 (1): 19–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, On, and Orly Lobel. 2008. Stumble, Predict, Nudge: How Behavioral Economics Informs Law and Policy. Columbia Law Review 108: 2098–2137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anolli, Luigi, and Fabrizia Mantovani. 2012. Come funziona la nostra mente. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, Paul S. 2007. Law & Psychiatry: The New Lie Detectors: Neuroscience, Deception, and the Courts. Psychiatric Services 58 (4): 461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, Dan. 2009. Predictably Irrational. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, Hal R., and Cindy A. Schipani. 1994. Medical Malpractice v. the Business Judgement Rule: Differences in Hindsight Bias. Oregon Law Review 73: 592–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrigo, Bruce A. 2007. Punishment, Freedom, and the Culture of Control: The Case of Brain Imaging and the Law. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33: 457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth, Robert H. Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, and Robert Wilson, eds. 1995. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aunger, Robert, and Valerie Curtis. 2015. Gaining Control. How Human Behavior Evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, Linda, George Loewenstein, and Samuel Issacharoff. 1997. Creating Convergence: Debiasing Biased Litigants. Law and Social Inquiry 22 (4): 913–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggio, Guido. 2015. La mente bio-sociale. filosofia e psicologia in G.H. Mead. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, Robert. 2014. From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree. The Modern Law Review 77 (6): 831–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberis, Mauro. 1998. L’evoluzione nel diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, Jerome H., Lela Cosmides, and John Tooby. 1992. The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basile, Filippo, and Giuseppe Vallar. 2017. Neuroscienze e diritto penale: le questioni sul tappeto. Diritto Penale Contemporaneo 4: 269–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskin, Joseph H., Judith G. Edersheim, and Bruce H. Price. 2007. Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Neuroimaging in the Courtroom. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33: 239–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, Cesare. 1764. An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, with a Commentary by M. de Voltaire. [1872]. Albany, NY: W. O. Little & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecher-Monas, Erica, and Edgar Garcia-Rill. 2015. Overselling Images: fMRI and the Search for Truth. Marshall Law Review 48 (3): 651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellelli, Guglielmo, and Raffaella Di Schiena. 2012. Decisioni ed emozioni. decisioni ed emozioni. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino, Marta. 2013. Imputabilità: scienze, neuroscienze e diritto penale. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, Gary. 2002. Advocacy Against the Stereotype: Lessons from Cognitive Social Psychology. UCLA Law Review 49: 1241–1281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, Gary, and John T. Jost. 2006. System Justification Theory and Research: Implications for Law, Legal Advocacy, and Social Justice. California Law Review 94: 1119–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, Paul. 2016. Against Empathy. The Case for Rational Compassion. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, Jeremy A. 2005. Does Mood Influence Moral Judgment? An Empirical Test with Legal and Policy Implications. Law and Psychology Review 29: 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumoff, Theodore Y. 2009. The Brain Sciences and Criminal Law Norms. Vol. 1787. Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research Conferences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbio, Norberto. 1951. La certezza del diritto è un mito? Rivista internazionale di filosofia del diritto 28: 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boella, Laura. 2006. Sentire l’altro. Conoscere e praticare l’empatia. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. La morale e la natura. In Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio, ed. Andrea Lavazza and Giuseppe Sartori. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bona, Carlo. 2010. Sentenze imperfette. Gli errori cognitivi nei giudizi civili. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bona, Carlo, and Rino Rumiati. 2013. Psicologia cognitiva per il diritto. Ricordare, pensare, decidere nell’esperienza forense. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon, Raymond. 2009. Effets pervers et ordre sociale. Paris: Quadrige - PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, Stein, ed. 2007. On Being Moved. From Mirror Neurons to Empathy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, Jeffrey M., and Russell H. Swerdlow. 2003. Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign. Archives of Neurology 60 (3): 437–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callegari, Alessandra. 2017. Il giudice fra emozioni, biases ed empatia. Canterano: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet Christian, Roberta, and James Alm. 2012. Empathy, Sympathy, and Tax Compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology 40: 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, Laura. 2013. Primi casi ‘clinici’ in tema di prova neuroscientifica. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cary, Phillip. 2007. A Brief History of the Concept of Free Will: Issues That Are and Are Not Germane to Legal Reasoning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25: 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castignone, Silvana. 1995. Diritto, linguaggio, realtà: saggi sul realismo giuridico. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catellani, Patrizia. 1992. Il giudice esperto. Psicologia cognitiva e ragionamento giudiziario. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caterina, Raffaele, ed. 2008a. I fondamenti cognitivi del diritto. Percezioni, rappresentazioni, comportamenti. Torino: Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008b. Un approccio cognitivo alla diversità culturale. In I fondamenti cognitivi del diritto, ed. Raffaele Caterina. Torino: Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesiano, Davide. 2013. L’applicazione Della ‘business judgement rule’ nella giurisprudenza italiana. Giurisprudenza Commerciale, no. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charness, Gary, and Uri Gneezy. 2008. What’s in a Name? Anonymity and Social Distance in Dictator and Ultimatum Games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68 (1): 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicourel, Aaron V. 1974. Cognitive Sociology. Language and Meaning in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, David, and Jack L. Knetsch. 2000. Judicial Choice and Disparities between Measures of Economic Values. In Choices, Values, and Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Randall. 1975. Conflict Sociology. Toward an Explanatory Science. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Interaction Ritual Chains, Power and Property: The Micro-Macro Connection as an Empirically Based Theoretical Problem. In The Micro-Macro Link, ed. Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch, and Neil J. Smelser. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, Franco. 1989. Azione sociale e potere. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, Michel. 2010. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ, London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Avack, Lorenzo. 2013. Neuroscienze ed esperimenti sull’uomo: a partire dall’analisi del parere del comitato nazionale per la bioetica. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam’s and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levavb, and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa. 2011. Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (17): 6889–6892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, Christopher T., Peter John Loewen, Darren Schreiber, Alan N. Simmons, Taru Flagan, Richard McElreath, Scott E. Bokemper, James H. Fowler, and Martin P. Paulus. 2012. Neural Basis of Egalitarian Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (17): 6479–6483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, Robyn M., and John M. Orbell. 1995. The Benefit of Optional Play in Anonymous One-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma Games. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Kenneth Arrow, Robert H. Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, and Robert Wilson. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Caro, Mario. 2011. Libero arbitrio e neuroscienze. In Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio, ed. Andrea Lavazza and Giuseppe Sartori. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Cataldo Neuburger, Luisella. 1988. Psicologia della testimonianza e prova testimoniale. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Neuroscienze e diritto penale. La scienza come, quando e perché. In Le neuroscienze e il diritto, ed. Amedeo Santosuosso. Como, Pavia: Ibis.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Felice, Deborah. 2010. Modelli evolutivi e teoria generale del comportamento deviante. In Neodarwinismo e scienze sociali, ed. Roberto Vignera. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Il sapere specialistico nel giudizio penale. Profili d’analisi di sociologia del diritto. Milano, Udine: Mimesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartogh, Govert. 2013. The Political Obligation to Donate Organs. Ratio Juris 26 (3): 378–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmoulin-Canselier, Sonia. 2017. Another Perspective on ‘Neurolaw’: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence. BioLaw Journal - Rivista di biodiritto 3 (November): 233–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhami, Mandeep K. 1982. Legal Decision Making: Psychological Reality Meets Legal Idealism. In Law and Psychology, ed. Belinda Brooks-Gordon and Michael Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine, Ombretta. 2009. Un diritto penale empatico? Diritto penale, bioetica e neuroetica. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 1985. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englich, Birte, and Thomas Mussweiler. 2001. Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31 (7): 1535–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farahany, Nita A. 2012. A Neurological Foundation for Freedom. Stanford Technology Law Review 4: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farisco, Michele. 2013. Neuroscienze e diritto di cura di pazienti con disturbi della coscienza. In Il Diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, Neal. 2006. Brain Imaging and Courtroom Evidence: On the Admissibility and Persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context 2 (3): 233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Yuval, Amos Schurr, and Doron Teichman. 2016. Anchoring Legal Standards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 13 (2): 298–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, Pier Francesco, and Vittorio Gallese. 2007. Mirror Neurons and Intersubjectivity. In On Being Moved. From Mirror Neurons to Empathy, ed. Stein Bråten. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnbogason, Guðmundur. 1913. L’intelligence sympathique. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Roger, and William L. Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza, Antonio. 2010. Neuroscienze e futuri scenari per il diritto. In Mente, società e diritto, ed. Guglielmo Gulotta and Antonietta Curci. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza, Antonio, Giulia Menegon, and Rino Rumiati. 2017. Il giudice emotivo. La decisione tra ragione ed emozione. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Jerome. 1949. Law and the Modern Mind. London: Stevens & Sons Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks, David D. 2010. Neurosociology. The Nexus between Neuroscience and Social Psychology. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, Bruno S., and Jana Gallus. 2016. Beneficial and Exploitative Nudges. In Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics, ed. Klaus Mathis and Avishalom Tor. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuselli, Stefano. 2013. Le emozioni nell’esperienza giuridica. L’impatto delle neuroscienze. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Diritto, neuroscienze, filosofia: un itinerario. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallacher, Ian. 2011. Thinking Like Non-lawyers: Why Empathy Is a Core Lawyering Skill and Why Legal Education Should Change to Reflect Its Importance. Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD 6: 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, Brent, ed. 2004a. Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice. New York, Washington: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004b. Neuroscience and the Law: A Report. In Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, ed. Brent Garland. New York, Washington: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaniga, Michael S. 1985. The Social Brain. Discovering the Networks of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genevès, Victor. 2016. Neurosciences et société. Quelle régulation pour quel phénomène? Lex Electronica, no. 21. Centre de recherche en droit public, Université de Montréal: 131–147. http://www.lex-electronica.org/articles/volume-21/neurosciences-et-societe-quelle-regulation-pour-quel-phenomene/.

  • Ghezzi, Morris Lorenzo. 2016. Il Diritto come estetica. Epistemologia della conoscenza e della volontà: il nichilismo/nihilismo del dubbio. Milano: Mimesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1998. The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2015. On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, Herbert. 2007. A Framework for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giusberti, Fiorella, Raffaella Nori, Elisa Gambetti, and Luca Bensi. 2010. Emettere una sentenza. Aspetti del processo decisionale. In Mente, società e diritto, ed. Guglielmo Gulotta and Antonietta Curci. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, Walter. 2014. The Limitations and Potential of Neuroimaging in the Criminal Law. The Journal of Ethics 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9169-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godsey, Mark. 2017. Blind Injustice. A Former Prosecutor Exposes the Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, David. 2012. Our Genes, Our Choices. How Genotype and Gene Interactions Affect Behavior. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, Oliver R. 2006. Can Cognitive Neuroscience Make Psychology a Foundational Discipline for the Study of Law? In Law and Psychology, ed. Belinda Brooks-Gordon and Michael Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Neuroscientific Developments as a Legal Challenge. In Le Neuroscienze E Il Diritto, ed. Amedeo Santosuosso. Como, Pavia: Ibis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, Oliver R., and Kristin Prehn. 2006. A Neuroscientific Approach to Normative Judgment in Law and Justice. In Law and the Brain, ed. Semir Zeki and Oliver R. Goodenough. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, Oliver R., and Micaela Tucker. 2010. Law and Cognitive Neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6 (1): 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, Henry T. 2004. Prediction, Litigation, Privacy, and Property. In Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, ed. Brent Garland. New York: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Joshua, and Jonathan Cohen. 2006. For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. In Law and the Brain, ed. Semir Zeki and Oliver R. Goodenough. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald, and Ronald L. Cohen. 1982. Why Justice? Normative and Instrumental Interpretations. In Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, ed. Jerald Greenberg and Ronald L. Cohen. New Haven, London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, Anthony G., and Linda Hamilton. 2006. Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations. California Law Review 94: 945–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Stanford W. 1983. A Quantitative Analysis of Temporal Symmetry in Microsocial Relations. American Sociological Review 48 (1): 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guala, Francesco, and Luigi Mittone. 2015. A Political Justification of Nudging. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, Chris. 1999. Better Settle Than Sorry: The Regret Aversion Theory of Litigation Behavior. University of Illinois Law Review 47: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2001. Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review 86 (4): 777–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagman, William, David Andersson, Daniel Västfjäll, and Gustav Tinghög. 2015. Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hari, Riitta. 2007. Human Mirroring Systems. On Assessing Mind by Reading Brain and Body During Social Interaction. In On Being Moved. From Mirror Neurons to Empathy, ed. Stein Bråten. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, Martie G., and Daniel Nettle. 2006. The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (1): 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, Daniel M., and Brynn Welch. 2010. Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, Kevin Jon. 2006. The Cognitive Psychology of Circumstantial Evidence. Michigan Law Review 105: 241–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleringer, Geneviève. 2016. Designing Disclosures. Testing the Efficacy of Disclosure in Retail Investment Advice. In Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics, ed. Klaus Mathis and Avishalom Tor. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickok, Gregory. 2009. Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21 (7): 1229–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Il mito dei neuroni specchio. Comunicazione e facoltà cognitive. La nuova frontiera. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, Robert A. 2000. The Limits of Behavioral Decision Theory in Legal Analysis: The Case of Liquidated Damages. Cornell Law Review 85: 717–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, Steven, and Stephen Vaisey. 2013. The New Sociology of Morality. Annual Review of Sociology 39 (1): 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, David. 1739. In A Treatise of Human Nature. [1896], ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125487/5010_Hume_Treatise_Human_Nature.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni, Marco. 2009. The Problem of Other Minds Is Not a Problem: Mirror Neurons and Intersubjectivity. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iagulli, Paolo. 2011. La sociologia delle emozioni. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jhering, Rudolf von. 1913. In Law as a Means to An End, ed. Isaac Husik. Boston: The Boston Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolls, Christine, and Cass R. Sunstein. 2004. Debiasing through Law. Vol. 225. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The Law of Implicit Bias. California Law Review 94: 969–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D., and Sarah F. Brosnan. 2008. Law, Biology, and Property: A New Theory of the Endowment Effect. William and Mary Law Review 49 (6): 1935–1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D., Robert Ellickson, Ira Ellman, Adam Gifford, Oliver Goodenough, Lydia Jones, Dennis Karjala, et al. 2001. Time-Shifted Rationality and the Law of Law’s Leverage: Behavioral Economics Meets Behavioral Biology. Northwestern University Law Review 95 (4): 1141–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D., and Timothy H. Goldsmith. 2005. Law and Behavioral Biology. Columbia Law Review 105: 405–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D., Jeffrey D. Schall, and Francis X. Shen, eds. 2014. Law and Neuroscience. New York: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Owen D., Anthony D. Wagner, David L. Faigman, and Marcus E. Raichle. 2013. Neuroscientists in Court. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 14 (10): 730–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000a. Choices, Values, and Frames. In Choices, Values, and Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. Conflict Resolution. A Cognitive Perspective. In Choices, Values and Frames, ed. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamin, Kim A., and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski. 1995. Ex Post ≠ Ex Ante: Determining Liability in Hindsight. Law and Human Behavior 19 (1): 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawohl, Wolfram, and Elmar Habermeyer. 2007. Free Will: Reconciling German Civil Law with Libet’s Neurophysiological Studies on the Readiness Potential. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25: 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, Adam. 1970. Movement Coordination in Social Interaction: Some Examples Described. Acta Psychologica 32 (January): 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysers, Christian, and Valeria Gazzola. 2009. Unifying Social Cognition. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoshbin, Laura Stephens, and Shahram Khoshbin. 2007. Imaging the Mind, Minding the Image: An Historical Introduction to Brain Imaging and the Law. American Journal of Law & Medicine 33: 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, Willard L. 1937. The Breakfast Theory of Jurisprudence. Dicta 14 (6 (April)): 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, Leo. 2007. Admissibility of fMRI Lie Detection. The Cultural Bias Against ‘Mind Reading’ Devices. Brooklyn Law Review 72: 1351–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, Hans-Ludwig. 2007. The Historical Debate on Brain and Legal Responsibility — Revisited. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25: 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krynski, Tevye R., and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2007. The Role of Causality in Judgment under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 136 (3): 430–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, Kristin A., Jerry Kang, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2007. Implicit Social Cognition and Law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (1): 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langevoorrt, Donald C. 2015. Resetting the Corporate Thermostat: Lessons from the Recent Financial Scandals About Self-Deception, Deceiving Others and the Design of Internal Controls. Georgetown Law Journal 93: 285–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lecouteux, Guilhem. 2015. In Search of Lost Nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepenies, Robert, and Magdalena Małecka. 2015. The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and the Law. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 427–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, Melvin J. 1980. The Belief in a Just World. A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Neil. 2014. Is Neurolaw Conceptually Confused? The Journal of Ethics 18 (2): 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libet, Benjamin, Curtis A. Gleason, Elwood W. Wright, and Dennis K. Pearl. 1983. Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential) - The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106: 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2014. Neuroprediction, Truth-Sensitivity, and the Law. The Journal of Ethics 18 (2): 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, Martin, and Kai Wegrich. 2016. The Rationality Paradox of Nudge: Rational Tools of Government in a World of Bounded Rationality. Law & Policy 38 (3): 250–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, Derek E. 2009. The Rational Continuum of Human Imitation. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macioce, Fabio. 2013. Le neuroscienze e il processo penale. Una relazione difficile. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magrin, Maria Elena. 1995. Psicologia della decisione giudiziaria. In Manuale di psicologia giuridica, ed. Assunto Quadrio and Gaetano De Leo. Milano: Edizioni universitarie di lettere economia diritto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouff, John, and Nicola S. Schutte. 1989. Shaping Juror Attitudes: Effects of Requesting Different Damage Amounts in Personal Injury Trials. The Journal of Social Psychology 129 (4): 491–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzotti, Riccardo, and Vincenzo Tagliasco. 2008. L’esperienza. Perché i neuroni non spiegano tutto. Torino: Codice Edizioni.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, Carlo. 2008. Risparmio, fiducia e corporate governance. In I fondamenti cognitivi del diritto, ed. Raffaele Caterina. Torino: Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrone, Gianfranco. 2011. Addio alla natura. Torino: Giulio Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, Klaus, and Avishalom Tor, eds. 2016. Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, Klaus, and Philipp Anton Burri. 2016. Nudging in Swiss Contract Law? An Analysis of Non-mandatory Default Rules from a Legal, Economic and Behavioral Perspective. In Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics, ed. Klaus Mathis and Avashalom Tor. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocco, Ketti. 2008. Emozioni e decisione. In Psicologia del giudizio e della decisione, ed. Nicolao Bonini, Fabio Del Missier, and Rino Rumiati. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, George Herbert. 1972. In Mind, Self & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, ed. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert King. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messina, Giulia. 2015. I Nuovi orizzonti della prova (neuro)scientifica nel giudizio sull’imputabilità. Rivista italiana di medicina legale (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Metting, Zwany, Lars A. Rödiger, Jacques De Keyser, and Joukje van der Naalt. 2007. Structural and Functional Neuroimaging in Mild-to-Moderate Head Injury. The Lancet. Neurology 6 (8): 699–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, George A. 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psycological Review 63: 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Chris. 2015. The Heteronomy of Choice Architecture. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 495–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Gregory. 2002. Taking Behavioralism Too Seriously? The Unwarranted Pessimism of the New Behavioral Analysis of Law. William and Mary Law Review 43: 1907–2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Libertarian Paternalism Is An Oxymoron. Northwestern University Law Review 99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, Robert H., and Lee Ross. 1995. Introduction. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Kenneth Arrow, Robert H. Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, and Robert Wilson. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti, Alberto. 2008. Psicologia della decisione e tutela del consumatore. In I fondamenti cognitivi del diritto, ed. Raffaele Caterina. Torino: Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Stephen J. 2004. New Neuroscience, Old Problems. In Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, ed. Brent Garland. New York: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The Neuroscience Challenges to Criminal Responsibility. In Le neuroscienze e il diritto, ed. Amedeo Santosuosso. Como, Pavia: Ibis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musatti, Cesare Luigi. 1931. Elementi di psicologia della testimonianza. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 1974. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review 83 (4): 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, Anton D., and Edmund Fantino. 2009. The Sunk-Time Effect: An Exploration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22 (3): 252–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, William A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norscia, Ivan, and Elisabetta Palagi. 2011. Yawn Contagion and Empathy in Homo Sapiens. PloS One 6 (12): e28472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, Martin A., Karen M. Page, and K. Sigmund. 2000. Fairness Versus Reason in the Ultimatum Game. Science 289 (September): 1773–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha C. 2006. Reply to Amnon Reichman. Journal of Legal Education 56: 320–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, Rick, David Sloan Wilson, and Ralph R. Miller. 2008. An Evolved Cognitive Bias for Social Norms. Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2): 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberman, Lindsay M., and V.S. Ramachandran. 2009. Reflections on the Mirror Neuron System: Their Evolutionary Functions Beyond Motor Representation. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliverio, Alberto. 2012. Cervello. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzani, Laura. 2013. Potenziamento neuro-cognitivo: aspetti bioetici e biogiuridici. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzani, Laura, and Roberto Zanotti. 2013. Introduzione. In Il Diritto Nelle Neuroscienze. Non “Siamo” i Nostri Cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, Michael S., and Dennis Patterson. 2013. Minds, Brains, and Law. The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pattaro, Enrico. 2005. The Law and the Right. A Reappraisal of the Reality That Ought to Be. In A Treatise, ed. Enrico Pattaro. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Bruce. 2005. Negotiation. In The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, ed. Michael L. Moffit and Robert C. Bordone. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, Mark, Jr. 2007. FMRI and BF Meet FRE: Brain Imaging and the Federal Rules of Evidence. American Journal of Law and Medicine 33: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picozza, Eugenio. 2013. Neurodiritto. Ipotesi di voce per un’enciclopedia o dizionario giuridico. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picozza, Eugenio, and Valentina D’Arrigo. 2015. Neurodiritto: nuova filosofia del diritto o teoria generale? In Diritto, neuroscienze, scienze della cognizione, ed. Ernesto Fabiani, Sebastiano Faro, and Nicola Lettieri. Napoli: Edizioni scientifiche italiane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietroni, Davide, and Rino Rumiati. 2008. Negoziazione e decisione. In Psicologia del giudizio e della decisione, ed. Nicolao Bonini, Fabio Del Missier, and Rino Rumiati. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pineda, Jaime A. 2009. Preface. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzetti, Federico Gustavo. 2012. Neuroscienze Forensi e diritti fondamentali: spunti costituzionali. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pockett, Susan. 2007. The Concept of Free Will: Philosophy, Neuroscience and the Law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 25 (February): 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogliani, Anna. 1989. L’immagine della giustizia in Italia: una ricerca sulle opinioni e sugli atteggiamenti. In Giustizia, norme e autoregolazione in psicologia sociale, ed. Fiorangela Oneroso Di Lisa. Napoli: Liguori Editori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard A. 2004. Frontiers of Legal Theory. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, Jeffrey J. 1982. Cognitive Errors, Individual Differences, and Paternalism. In Law and Psychology, ed. Belinda Brooks-Gordon and Michael Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. A Positive Psychological Theory of Judging in Hindsight. University of Chicago Law Review 65: 571–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000a. Heuristics and Biases in the Court: Ignorance or Adaptation? Oregon Law Review 79: 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. The ‘New’ Law and Psychology: A Reply to Critics, Skeptics, and Cautious Supporters. Cornell Law Review 85: 739–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. The Uncertain Psychological Case for Paternalism. Northwestern University Law Review 97: 1165–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Forest Jourden. 1998. Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership. Vanderbilt Law Review 51: 1541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2017. Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13 (1): 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragone, Giada, and Benedetta Vimercati. 2017. Neuroscience and End-of-Life Decisions. New Anthropological Challenges for Constitutional Law: “Is Human Nature the Only Science of Man”? BioLaw Journal - Rivista di biodiritto 3 (November): 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raine, Adrian. 2014. The Anatomy of Violence. The Biological Roots of Crime. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangone, Nicoletta. 2012. Errori cognitivi e scelte di regolazione. Analisi giuridica dell’economia 1: 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, Matt. 1996. The Origins of Virtue. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Laila Craighero. 2004. The Mirror-Neuron System. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27: 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Corrado Sinigaglia. 2006. So quel che fai. Il cervello che agisce e i neuroni specchio. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochat, Philippe, and Claudia Passos-Ferreira. 2009. From Imitation to Reciprocation and Mutual Recognition. In Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition, ed. Jaime A. Pineda. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, Lee. 1995. Reactive Devaluation in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Kenneth Arrow, Robert H. Mnookin, Lee Ross, Amos Tversky, and Robert Wilson. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumiati, Rino, and Lorella Lotto. 2011. Decisioni e decisioni morali, tra razionalità ed emozioni. In Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio, ed. Andrea Lavazza and Giuseppe Sartori. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammicheli, Luca, and Giuseppe Sartori. 2010. Delitto, geni, follia. In Neodarwinismo e scienze sociali, ed. Roberto Vignera. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, Amedeo. 2009. Il dilemma del diritto di fronte alle neuroscienze. In Le neuroscienze e il diritto, ed. Amedeo Santosuosso. Como, Pavia: Ibis.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Diritto, scienza, nuove tecnologie. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapolsky, Robert M. 2006. The Frontal Cortex and the Criminal Justice System. In Law and the Brain, ed. Semir Zeki and Oliver R. Goodenough. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, Giovanni. 2005. Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to the Law. In A Treatise, ed. Enrico Pattaro. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, Giuseppe, Andrea Lavazza, and Luca Sammicheli. 2011. Cervello, diritto e giustizia. In Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio, ed. Andrea Lavazza and Giuseppe Sartori. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawicki, Nadia N. 2016. Ethical Limitations on the State’s Use of Arational Persuasion. Law & Policy 38 (3): 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2010. Neuroscience, Lie-Detection, and the Law: Contrary to the Prevailing View, the Suitability of Brain-Based Lie-Detection for Courtroom or Forensic Use Should Be Determined According to Legal and Not Scientific Standards. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (3): 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1997. The Mistery of Consciousness. New York: The NY Review of Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafi, Noel. 2009. Neuroscience and Law: The Evidentiary Value of Brain Imaging. Graduate Student Journal of Psychology 11: 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of Man. New York, London: John Wiley - Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sood, Avani Mehta. 2013. Motivated Cognition in Legal Judgments. An Analytic Review. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9 (1): 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spranger, Tade M. 2009. A German Perspective on Legal Issues Arising from Neuroscientific Research and Application. In Le Neuroscienze E Il Diritto, ed. Amedeo Santosuosso. Como, Pavia: Ibis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, Jeffrey Evans. 2006. The Property ‘Instinct’. In Law and the Brain, ed. Semir Zeki and Oliver R. Goodenough. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, Ariel David. 2016. Judging Is Nudging: The Inevitability of Value Judgments. Consequences of the Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy for the Behavioural Law and Economics. In Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens-Simon, Catherine, Jeffrey I. Dolgan, Lisa Kelly, and Dena Singer. 1997. The Effect of Monetary Incentives and Peer Support Groups on Repeat Adolescent Pregnancies. A Randomized Trial of the Dollar-a-Day Program. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (12): 977–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, Mark C. 1997. On Beyond Interest: Rational, Normative and Cognitive Perspectives in the Social Scientific Study of Law. Wisconsin Law Review 3: 475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2000. Deliberative Trouble - Why Groups Go to Extremes. Yale Law Journal 110: 71–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Choosing Not to Choose. Duke Law Journal 64 (1): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Nudges, Agency, and Abstraction: A Reply to Critics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Human Agency and Behavioral Economics: Nudging Fast and Slow. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tafaro, Laura. 2017. Neuroscienze e diritto civile: nuove prospettive. BioLaw Journal - Rivista Di biodiritto 3 (November): 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi, Laurence R. 2004. Neuroscience Developments and the Law. In Neuroscience and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, ed. Brent Garland. New York, Washington: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tereszkiewicz, Piotr. 2016. Neutral Third-Party Counselling as Nudge Toward Safer Financial Products? The Case of Risky Mortgage Loan Contracts. In Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics, ed. Klaus Mathis and Avishalom Tor. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terracina, David. 2013. Diritto penale e neuroscienze. In Il diritto nelle neuroscienze. Non “siamo” i nostri cervelli, ed. Laura Palazzani and Roberto Zanotti. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard H. 1980. Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1: 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2009. Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happyness. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisseron, Serge. 2010. L’empathie au coeur du jeu social. Paris: Albin Michel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, John, and Lela Cosmides. 1992. The Psychological Foundations of Culture. In The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, ed. Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout, J.D. 2005. Paternalism and Cognitive Bias. Law and Philosophy 24 (4): 393–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Baaren, Rick B., Rob W. Holland, Bregje Steenaert, and Ad van Knippenberg. 2003. Mimicry for Money: Behavioral Consequences of Imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (4): 393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, Daniel. 2010. A Nudge to Mediate: How Adjustments in Choice Architecture Can Lead to Better Dispute Resolution Decisions. The American Journal of Mediation 4: 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentworth, William, and Darrell Yardley. 1994. Deep Sociality: A Bioevolutionary Perspective on the Sociology of Emotions. In Social Perspectives on Emotion, ed. William M. Wentworth and John Ryan. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, Bruce E. 2008. Brain and Culture. Neurobiology, Ideology, and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, Douglas Glen, and Mario J. Rizzo. 2015. The Problematic Welfare Standards of Behavioral Paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3): 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, T.M. 2013. Nudging and Manipulation. Political Studies 61 (2): 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Simon. 2001. Emotion and Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, London, New Dehli: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Robert. 1995. The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cesare Beccaria Department of Law, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Luigi Cominelli

Authors
  1. Luigi Cominelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cominelli, L. (2018). Cognition and the Law. In: Cognition of the Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89348-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89348-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89347-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89348-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation