Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-xjl2h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T01:32:12.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

37 - The Legal Conductome

The Complexity Behind Decisions

from Part III - Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2025

By
Enrique Cáceres ,
Christopher Stephens ,
Azalea Reyes-Aguilar ,
Daniel Atilano ,
Manuel García ,
Rosa Lidia López-Bejarano ,
Susana González ,
Carmen Patricia López-Olvera ,
Octavio Salvador-Ginez  and
Margarita Palacios
Edited by
Kevin Tobia
Kevin Tobia
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

This research paper aims to experimentally analyze how iusnaturalist and iuspositivist legal theories influence legal operators’ decisions when there are conflicts between law and morality, as well as to show that they interact and are codependently defined by other cognitive variables as a complex system.

Keywords

experimental jurisprudenceneurolawnaturalized legal philosophylegal constructivismlegal conductome

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence , pp. 666 - 691
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Belcher, A., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2010). Neurolaw. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(1), 18–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Bergman Blix, S., & Wettergren, Å. (2016). A sociological perspective on emotions in the judiciary. Emotion Review, 8(1), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluhm, R. (2014). No need for alarm: A critical analysis of Greene’s dual-process theory of moral decision-making. Neuroethics, 7(3), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckholtz, J. W., & Marois, R. (2012). The roots of modern justice: Cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 655–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bzdok, D., Schilbach, L., Vogeley, K., Schneider, K., Laird, A. R., Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2012). Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Structure and Function, 217(4), 783–796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cáceres Nieto, E. (2021). The foundations of legal constructivism. In Fabra-Zamora, J. L. & Villarosas, G. (Eds.), Conceptual Jurisprudence (pp. 295–319). SpringerLink. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78803-2_16Google Scholar
Chapman, H. A., Kim, D. A., Susskind, J. M., & Anderson, A. K. (2009). In bad taste: Evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science, 323(5918), 1222–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, J. F., & Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1249–1264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, J. F., Flexas, A., Calabrese, M., Gut, N. K., & Gomila, A. (2014). Moral judgment reloaded: A moral dilemma validation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 607 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
Dickert, S., Herbig, B., Glöckner, A., Gansen, C., & Portack, R. (2012). The more the better? Effects of training, experience and information amount in legal judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, J. F., Román Sicilia, H., & Stephens, C. R. (2019). Classification of diagnostic subcategories for obesity and diabetes based on eating patterns. Nutrition & Dietetics, 76(1), 104–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Easton, J. F., Stephens, C. R., & Román Sicilia, H. (2017). The effect of a medical opinion on self-perceptions of weight for Mexican adults: Perception of change and cognitive biases. BMC Obesity, 4(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feigenson, N. (2016). Jurors’ emotions and judgments of legal responsibility and blame: What does the experimental research tell us? Emotion Review, 8(1), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fugelsang, J. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2004). A cognitive neuroscience framework for understanding causal reasoning and the law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1749.Google ScholarPubMed
Giner-Sorolla, R., Chaiken, S., & Lutz, S. (2002). Validity beliefs and ideology can influence legal case judgments differently. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 507–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodenough, O. R., & Prehn, K. (2004). A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1709–1726.Google ScholarPubMed
Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Spassena, K., & Ditto, P. H. (2008). Moral foundations questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(5), 709–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 293(5537), 2105–2108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, B. I. (2019). Law’s halo and the moral machine. Columbia Law Review, 119, 1811.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, F., & Hoffman, M. (2016). The emerging neuroscience of third-party punishment. Trends in Neurosciences, 39(8), 499–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, M. M., Defever, A. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2017). Killing for the greater good: Action aversion and the emotional inhibition of harm in moral dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 770–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Albéniz, A., De Paúl, J., Etxeberría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres, E. (2003). Adaptación de interpersonal reactivity index al español. Psicothema, 267–272.Google Scholar
Plomin, R. (2004). Genetics and developmental psychology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982–), 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2008). Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges. Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195.Google Scholar
Reniers, R. L., Corcoran, R., Völlm, B. A., Mashru, A., Howard, R., & Liddle, P. F. (2012). Moral decision-making, ToM, empathy and the default mode network. Biological Psychology, 90(3), 202–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, M. E., & Geschwind, D. (2010). Genes and the long and winding road to cortical construction and cognition. Neurobiology of Disease, 38(2), 145.Google Scholar
Sarlo, M., Lotto, L., Manfrinati, A., Rumiati, R., Gallicchio, G., & Palomba, D. (2012). Temporal dynamics of cognitive–emotional interplay in moral decision-making. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 1018–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schleim, S., Spranger, T. M., Erk, S., & Walter, H. (2011). From moral to legal judgment: The influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 48–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71(2), 511–586.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, C. R. (n.d.). The Conductome – A Conceptual Model. Retrieved July 31, 2023, from https://chilam.c3.unam.mx/wp-content/themes/chilam/documents/conductome/ChapterBookConductome.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wistrich, A. J., Rachlinski, J. J., & Guthrie, C. (2014). Heart versus head: Do judges follow the law or follow their feelings. Texas Law Review, 93, 855.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×