Does the Law Change Preferences?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-213
Author(s):  
Jennifer Arlen ◽  
Lewis A. Kornhauser

Abstract “I would prefer not” HERMAN MELVILLE, BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER: A STORY OF WALL STREET (1853), reprinted in THE PIAZZA TALES 32, 48 (London, Sampson Low, Son & Co. 1856). Scholars have recently challenged the claim in classical deterrence theory that law influences behavior only through the expected sanction imposed. Some go further and argue that law may also “shape preferences,” changing people’s wants and values. In this Article, we analyze existing claims that criminal and civil law alter preferences and conclude that none suggest that the law shapes preferences. We first clarify this preference-shaping claim by elaborating the structure of rational choice theory generally and “preference” in particular. We then investigate three mechanisms of legal influence suggested by the preference-shaping literature: (1) the “serious harm” mechanism; (2) the “social norm” mechanism; and (3) the “self-improvement” mechanism. We then show that each of these mechanisms operates by changing the agent’s beliefs about the attributes or consequences of her choice options rather than by changing her preferences.

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Pi

Abstract Skeptics of rational choice theory have long predicted that behavioral economics would radically transform the legislation, adjudication, and analysis of law. Using tort law as an exemplar, this Article maps out the narrow set of conditions where substantive law can be modified to accommodate irrational decision-makers. Specifically, this Article demonstrates that if injurers are systematically biased, and the due care standard can be expressed quantitatively, and victims are unable to take meaningful precautions, then imposing punitive damages can induce irrational injurers to exercise efficient precautionary care. In all other cases, it is better that the law adopt a presumption of rationality, regardless whether individuals behave rationally in fact.


1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John O’Neill

AbstractHume has a special place in justifications of claims made for rational choice theory to offer a unified language and explanatory framework for the social sciences. He is invoked in support of the assumptions characterising the instrumental rationality of agents and the constancy of their motivations across different institutional settings. This paper explores the problems with the expansionary aims of rational choice theory through criticism of these appeals to Hume. First, Hume does not assume constancy. Moreover, Hume’s sensitivity to the relationships between institutional setting and individual motivation owes something to the relative transparency of the plural language of vices and virtues that he employs. Second, rational choice theory’s minimal modification of Hume’s account of the relation of reason and the passions through the introduction of constraints of consistency on preferences is unstable.


2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 1531-1566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laure Cabantous ◽  
Jean-Pascal Gond ◽  
Michael Johnson-Cramer

This paper explores the underlying practices whereby rationality — as defined in rational choice theory — is achieved within organizations. The qualitative coding of 58 case study reports produced by decision analysts, working in a wide range of settings, highlights how organizational actors can make decisions in accord with the axioms of rational choice theory. Our findings describe the emergence of ‘decision-analysis’ as a field and reveal the complex and fragile socio-technical infrastructure underlying the craft of rationality, the central role of calculability, and the various forms of bricolage that decision analysts deploy to make rational decisions happen. Overall, this research explores the social construction of rationality and identifies the practices sustaining the performativity of rational choice theory within organizations.


1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 862-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHARLES LOCKHART

Relying on culture as an important explanatory variable is regarded with skepticism by many contemporary political scientists. Yet, doubts about culture's usefulness rest in large part on false perceptions of various sorts. These misunderstandings relegate an important explanatory variable to the social science scrap heap. Accordingly, the author engages in three tasks. First, selected prominent arguments for culture's lack of explanatory usefulness are discussed. Second, it is demonstrated how at least one conceptualization of culture, Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid-group theory, overcomes aspects of these difficulties and contributes to explaining institutional form and political change. Third, it is argued that grid-group theory contributes significantly to both institutional analysis and rational choice theory. Grid-group theory augments each of these latter two approaches and, more important, reveals complementary aspects, linking these modes of analysis together as mutually supportive elements of a more inclusive explanatory scheme.


2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hindmoor

Arguing about rational choice theory remains a popular pastime. Following the publication of Green and Shapiro’sPathologies of Rational Choice Theory,a backlash against the use of rational choice theory within political science gained momentum. This article shows how, since 1994, sceptics have refined and extended the critique of rational choice and how practitioners have defended their approach, and a more general argument has emerged. In the 1990s, attitudes towards rational choice theory constituted a fundamental fault-line within the discipline, but changes to the way in which rational choice is practised and defended, together with some broader changes in the social sciences, have created more areas of common ground and taken some of the urgency out of this debate.


2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1538) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Elster

Rational-choice theory tries to explain behaviour on the assumption that individuals optimize. Some forms of irrational behaviour can be explained by assuming that the individual is subject to hedonic, pleasure-seeking mechanisms, such as wishful thinking or adaptive preference formation. In this paper, I draw attention to psychic mechanisms, originating in the individual, which make her worse off. I first consider the ideas of counterwishful thinking and of counteradaptive preference formation and then, drawing heavily on Proust, the self-poisoning of the mind that occurs through the operation of amour-propre.


2020 ◽  
pp. 053901842096344
Author(s):  
Tibor Rutar

Peter T. Leeson and Tobias Wolbring agree with me that rationality, properly clarified, should continue to assume an important theoretical role in modern social science. We disagree, however, about the precise extent of its role. In my reply to the debate I focus on two related issues that have emerged. First, can and should the concepts of rationality, or rational choice theory (RCT) more generally, be employed as something more than just one tool among many? Second, can all cases of norm-following be satisfactorily subsumed by rationality and RCT analysis?


2007 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Learry Gagné

English Jon Elster has suggested that social norm compliance cannot be explained using rational-choice theory alone, as it also involves emotional motivations. We propose to expand on this proposition by adding another extra-rational aspect. According to Pierre Bourdieu, non-rational compliance earns greater group approval than interested compliance. We model this insight by stating that social norms contain an injunction not to comply rationally. The article begins with a study of motivations underlying social norm compliance, including “hypocritical compliance”, or rational compliance disguised as sincere and disinterested. This part is followed by a critique of the “economy of esteem” model. We introduce in the third part the concept of “hypocritical equilibrium”, in which most agents pretend to comply non-rationally while feigning not to notice that most others do the same. This kind of equilibrium is sustained by esteem-seeking and self-deception. The fourth part is an application of our model to dueling norms. We then conclude by looking at alternative models. Our aim is to show that, in social norm compliance, taking motivations seriously can yield explanations that strict rational-choice models cannot produce. French Selon Jon Elster, le conformisme aux normes sociales ne peut pas s’expliquer uniquement par la théorie du choix rationnel, car il met en jeu des motivations de nature émotionnelle. Nous proposons d’aller au delà de cette proposition en y ajoutant un autre aspect en dehors de la rationalité. Pour Pierre Bourdieu, le conformisme non rationnel est mieux accepté par le groupe que le conformisme intéressé. Nous modélisons cette idée en stipulant que les normes sociales contiennent une injonction à ne pas agir de façon rationnelle. L’article commence par une étude des motivations qui sous-tendent le conformisme aux normes sociales, y compris le “conformisme hypocrite”, qui est un conformisme rationnel déguisé en conformisme désintéressé. Nous présentons ensuite une critique du modèle de l’“économie de l’estime”. Dans la troisième partie, nous introduisons le concept d’“équilibre hypocrite”, où la plupart des agents font semblant de se conformer de manière désintéressée tout en ignorant délibérément les comportements semblables d’autrui. Ce genre d’équilibre se maintient par la recherche d’estime et l’illusion sur soi-même. Dans la quatrième partie, nous appliquons notre modèle aux normes régissant le duel, et nous concluons avec un survol de modèles alternatifs. Notre but est de montrer que, dans le champ normatif, prendre les motivations au sérieux peut nous offrir des explications que les modèles rationnels stricts ne peuvent donner.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document