The Effect of Malleability Beliefs and Emotions on Legal Decision Making

Abstract

For decades, legal formalism has held that judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not subjective variables. However, scholars and legal practitioners have long been aware of the influence of psychological factors on legal decision making. In this article we report on two studies that examined a model suggesting that belief in malleability (a belief that people’s personalities change and develop) is correlated with the severity assessment of a defendant’s criminal behavior. We also examined whether this relationship is mediated by negative and positive emotions. Our analysis revealed that believing in malleability reduces the likelihood of viewing the defendant’s traits as fixed, which leads to more compassionate legal assessment. Additionally, our results indicate that the mechanism underlying the relationship between a belief in malleability and judicial assessment is emotional. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings with an eye on the literature on law and psychology and implicit beliefs.

Keywords:

• Malleability
• decision making
• incremental theory
• entity theory
• emotions

Notes

1 It is important to note that in the past several years, the mainstream criminal system has lost its monopoly on regulating criminal behavior due to frustration and criticism against the criminal process. In order to provide better processes and to expand the goals of substantive criminal law (retribution, deterrence, expressive justice, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconciliation), an alternative discourse has emerged (Dancig-Rosenberg and Tali 2014).