Legal Interpretative Process and Litigants’ Cognitive Biases

Deffains, Bruno and Langlais, Eric (2008): Legal Interpretative Process and Litigants’ Cognitive Biases.

Abstract

For contemporary legal theory, law is essentially an interpretative and hermeneutic practice (Ackerman (1991), Horwitz (1992)). A straightforward consequence is that legal disputes between parties are motivated by their divergent interpretations regarding what law says on their case. This point of view fits well the growing evidence showing that litigants' cognitive performances display the optimistic bias or self-serving bias (Babcock and Lowenstein (1997)). This paper provides a theoretical analysis of the influence of such a cognitive bias on pretrial negotiations. However, we also consider that this effetcs is mitigated because of litigants' confidence about their own ability to predict the verdict; we model this issue assuming that litigants are risk averse in the sense of Yaari (1987), i.e. they display a kind of (rational) probability distorsion which is also well documented in experimantal economics. In a model à la Bebcuck (1984), we show that the consequences of the self-serving bias are partially consistent with the "optimistic model", but that parties' risk aversion has more ambiguous/unpredictable effects. These results contribute to explain that the believes about the result of the trial are not sufficient by themselves to understand the behaviors of litigants. As suggested by legal theory, the confidence the parties have in their believes is probably more important.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: litigation, self-serving bias, risk aversion
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior > K41 - Litigation Process

References

Ackerman B. (1991), We The People, Foundations, Belknap Press, Cambridge.

Babcock L. et Loewenstein G. (1997), "Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self serving bias", Journal of Economic Perspective, vol. 11, pp 109-126.

Bar-Gill O. (2006), "The Evolution and Persistence of Optimism in Litigation", vol. 22, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, pp. 490-507.

Bayes M., Kovenock D. and de Vries G. (2005), "Comparative analysis of litigation systems: an auction-theoretic approach", The Economic Journal, vol 115, pp 583-601.

Bebchuk L. A. (1984), "Litigation and settlement under imperfect information", Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 15, pp 404-415.

Cooter, R., Marks, S. and Mnookin, R. (1982), "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior", Journal of Legal Studies, vol 11, pp. 225-251.

Decidue E. and Wakker P. (2001), "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 23, pp 281-298.

Farmer A. and Pecorino P. (1994), "Pretrial negotiations with asymmetric information on risk preferences", International Review on Law and Economics, vol. 14 , pp 273-281.

Farmer A. and Pecorino P. (2002), "Pretrial bargaining with self-serving bias and asymmetric information", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 48, pp 163-176.

Gould J. (1973), The Economics of Legal Conflicts, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 2, pp 279-300.

Horwitz, M. (1992), The Transformation of the American Law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Ichino A., Polo M. and Rettore E. (2003), "Are Judges Biased by Labor Market Conditions?", European Economic Review, vol. 47, pp 913-944.

Landes W.M. (1972), An Economic Analysis of the Courts, Journal of Law and Economics, pp 61-107.

Loewenstein G., Issacharo S. Camerer C. and Babcock L. (1993), "Self-serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining", Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 22, pp. 135-159.

Marinescu I. (2007), "Are Judges Sensitive to Economic Conditions? Evidence from UK employment tribunals", Working paper, London School of Economics.

Nalebuff B. (1987), Credible Pretrial Negotiation, Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 18, pp. 198-210.

P'ng. P.L. (1983), Strategic Behavior of Suits, Settlement and Trial, Bell Journal of Economics, pp. 539-550.

Posner R.A. (1972), Economic Analysis of Law, Boston, Little Brown.

Priest G.L. and Klein B. (1984), The selection of disputes for litigation, Journal of Legal Studies, vol 13, pp 155.

Rachlinski J., Guthrie C. and Wistrich H. (2007), "Heuristics and Biases in Specialized Judges : The Case of Bankruptcy Judges", Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol 163, pp 167-198.

Roëll A. (1987), "Risk aversion in Quiggin and Yaari's rank-order model of choice under uncertainty", The Economic Journal, vol. 97, pp 143-159.

Rosenfeld M. (1998), Just Interpretation: Law between Ethics and Politics, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ross S. (1981), Some stronger measures of risk aversion in the small and in the large with applications, Econometrica, vol 49, pp 621-638.

Shavell S. (1982), Suits, settlement and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs, Journal of Legal Studies, vol.11, pp 55-81.

Tversky A. and Wakker P.(1995), "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights", Econometrica, vol. 63, pp 1255-1280.

Viscusi K. (2001), "Jurors, judges and the mistreatment of risk by the courts", Journal of Legal Studies, vol 30, pp 107-142.

Waldfogel J. (1995), The selection hypothesis and the relationship between trial and plaintiff victory, Journal of Political Economy, vol 103, pp 229-260.

Waldfogel J. (1998), Reconciling asymmetric information and divergent expectation theories of litigation, Journal of Law and Economics, vol 41, pp 451-476.

Weber E. and Kirsner (1997), "Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 14, pp 41-61.

Yaari M. (1987), "The Dual Theory of choice under risk", Econometrica, vol. 55, pp 95-116.