Project description

Within the legal profession, actors adopt particular roles – such as that of juror, attorney, or judge – that require them to adopt a very different mindset from their interactions outside of the legal system. However, the way in which these roles alter their mindset is not well understood. This project examines how different legal roles may alter people’s motives relative to those in non-legal settings. Previous research indicates that representing others may evoke a more competitive mindset that may reduce willingness to compromise. The present project examines these processes in context of the legal system, by examining how different legal roles may promote or suppress other-regarding (e.g., cooperation, altruism) and self-regarding (e.g., selfishness, competition) goals, and may guide actors’ expectations of others. Moreover, this project will compare these mindsets between different legal actors, to illuminate (for example) how the mindset of legal representatives may correspond with, or differ from those of the litigants themselves. By doing so, this project will demonstrate the way that legal roles affect people’s thinking, and how this may steer case resolution – such as willingness to accept compromise.

Relevant publications and works in progress:

• Reinders Folmer, C.P., Wildschut, T., De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2019). Coping with noise in social dilemmas: Group representatives fare worse than individuals because they lack trust in others’ benign intentions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22, 200-214.
• Reinders Folmer, C.P., Klapwijk, A., De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2012). One for all: What representing a group may do to us. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1047-1056.