The Great Attributional Divide – Abstract
Posted by The Situationist Staff on April 29, 2008
Situationist Contributors Adam Benforado and Jon Hanson have posted their recent article, “The Great Attributional Divide: How Divergent Views of Human Behavior are Shaping Legal Policy” (57 Emory Law Journal (2008)) on SSRN. The paper was recently listed on SSRN’s Top Ten download list for LSPLDL: Political Process, and is a featured article on the Emory Law Journal Website. The abstract is pasted below.
* * *
This article, the first of a multipart series, argues that a major rift runs across many of our major policy debates based on our attributional tendencies: the less accurate dispositionist approach, which explains outcomes and behavior with reference to people’s dispositions (i.e., personalities, preferences, and the like), and the more accurate situationist approach, which bases attributions of causation and responsibility on unseen influences within us and around us. Given that situationism offers a truer picture of our world than the alternative, and given that attributional tendencies are largely the result of elements in our situations, identifying the relevant elements should be a major priority of legal scholars. With such information, legal academics could predict which individuals, institutions, and societies are most likely to produce situationist ideas – in other words, which have the greatest potential for developing the accurate attributions of human behavior that are so important to law. (To download a copy, click here.)
This entry was posted on April 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm and is filed under Abstracts, Ideology, Legal Theory, Life, Naive Cynicism, Social Psychology. Tagged: attributional divide, Ideology, Law, Legal Theory, Naive Cynicism, psychology, realism, situationism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.