This paper proposes an alternative psychological explanation for bounded rationality. According to Herbert Simon, bounded rationality arises from human cognitive limitations. Following the suggestion of institutional economist John R. Commons, I argue that extremes in emotional arousal also contribute to bounded rationality. This idea is formalized and developed using the Yerkes–Dodson law from psychology. Examples from the popular press and the academic literatures of law, management and economics are presented to illustrate the impact of this type of bounded rationality on human behavior.

Emotional arousal as a source of bounded rationality

A 21-item scale that assesses attitudes toward homosexuality is presented. This Likert-type scale has one major factor, excellent internal consistency (alpha = .93), and good test-retest reliability (r = .71). An experiment that uses this measure to predict behavior toward an alleged homosexual is also described. In this study, each male subject was initially informed, was later informed, or was not informed that his partner was a homosexual. Half these participants expected interaction with their partner; half did not. Results showed that tolerant and intolerant males react very differently when they believe they are interacting with a homosexual, as evidenced by their ratings of liking for that individual, the type of information they requested from him, the information they presented about themselves, and what they remembered about that person. The influence of timing of information and expected interaction on these variables is also discussed.

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Assessment and Behavioral Consequences

Preventive use of force may be defined as the initiation of military action in anticipation of harmful actions that are neither presently occurring nor imminent. This essay explores the permissibility of preventive war from a cosmopolitan normative perspective, one that recognizes the basic human rights of all persons, not just citizens of a particular country or countries. It argues that preventive war can only be justified if it is undertaken within an appropriate rule-governed, institutional framework that is designed to help protect vulnerable countries against unjustified interventions while also avoiding unacceptable risks of the costs of inaction. The key to ensuring the fairness of rules governing the preventive use of force is accountability.

This essay proposes a scheme that would make those promoting and those rejecting the preventive use of force more accountable. The proposal contains the following crucial features:


States proposing preventive war are required to enter into a contract with a diverse body of states as a condition for authorization of their actions;


Prior to taking preventive action, states must make an evidence-based case to the UN Security Council, and agree in advance to submit themselves to an evaluation by an impartial body after the preventive action occurred;


Both proponents of action and those opposing it will be held accountable ex post for the accuracy of their prior statements and the proportionality of their actions;


Sanctions will be imposed against intervening states or states that opposed preventive action, respectively, depending on the findings of the ex post evaluation.


If preventive action were blocked in the Security Council, states seeking to engage in preventive action could then present their case in a different body-a coalition of democratic states-with its own ex post and ex ante accountability procedures.

The Preventive Use of Force: A Cosmopolitan Institutional Proposal

Many scholars - from fields as diverse as psychology, law, philosophy, and neuroscience - have begun to study the intersection of emotion and law. I describe that scholarship's development; propose that it is organized along six interrelated but theoretically distinct foci; and suggest directions for future research. The notion that reason and emotion are cleanly separable - and that law admits only of the former - is deeply engrained, though it recently has come under attack. Law and emotion scholarship proceeds from the beliefs that emotion may be specifically studied, that it is relevant to law, and that its legal relevance is deserving of close scrutiny. It is organized around the following six approaches: Emotion-centered: Analyze how a particular emotion is, could be, or should be reflected in law. Emotional phenomenon: Describe a mechanism by which emotion is experienced, processed, or expressed, and analyze how that phenomenon is, could be, or should be reflected in law. Emotion theory: Adopt a particular theory (or theories) of the emotions and analyze how that theory is, could be, or should be reflected in law. Legal doctrine: Analyze how emotion is, could be, or should be reflected in a particular area of legal doctrine. Theory of law: Analyze the theories of emotion embedded or reflected within a theoretical approach to the law. Legal actor: Examine how a legal actor's performance of her function is, could be, or should be influenced by emotion. Any given study within the law-and-emotion rubric will have its primary grounding in at least one of these approaches, but should strive to attend to each. Thus, it should identify which emotion(s) it takes as its focus; distinguish between those emotions and implicated emotion-driven phenomena; explore relevant and competing theories of those emotions' origin, purpose, or functioning; limit itself to a particular type of legal doctrine or legal determination; expose any underlying theories of law; and make clear which legal actors are implicated. Directions for future research include greater attention to: non-criminal law; positive emotions; a wider variety of emotion theories and theories of law; and a broader range of legal actors. Cross-disciplinary collaboration will be particularly useful in this endeavor.

Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field

In a recent article, M. B. Oliver and J. S. Hyde (1993) reported the results of a set of meta-analyses of gender differences on a number of sexuality-related variables, including attitudes toward homosexuality. The small number of studies on this topic included in the review suggested that Oliver and Hyde's literature search strategy overlooked a number of studies. This article reports the results of a new meta-analysis using an expanded search strategy. In contrast to Oliver and Hyde's results, it was found that men held more negative attitudes toward homosexuality and, to a lesser extent, the civil rights of lesbians and gay men than did women. Effect sizes were moderated by subject population, with general adult samples showing no sex difference and other samples showing larger effect sizes. Effect sizes also varied as a function of the sex of the person rated, with larger sex differences for gay men than for lesbians. The implications of the results for the process of literature reviewing and for gender-based explanations of antigay prejudice are discussed.

Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: a comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993)

Understanding Criminal Law

/pdf/rethinking-heat-of-passion-a-defense-in-search-of-a-17ifpec495.pdf

Rethinking Heat of Passion: A Defense in Search of a Rationale

/pdf/when-heterosexual-men-kill-homosexual-men-reflections-on-4u3qn36b7k.pdf

When heterosexual men kill homosexual men: reflections on provocation law, sexual advances, and the reasonable man standard

This popular casebook, through the selection of classic and modern cases, provides an excellent tool for teaching students the common law foundations of the criminal law and modern statutory reform, including the Model Penal Code. Along the way, the casebook considers modern controversies (e.g., "shaming" punishment, rape law, self-defense by battered women, euthanasia, the role of culture in determining culpability), and creatively uses literature (e.g., examining insanity through Edgar Allen Poe's The-Tell Tale Heart) and even "brain teasers" to confront (as the Preface states) "the Big Questions ...that philosophers, theologians, scientists, and poets, as well as lawyers, have grappled with for centuries." Professor Stephen Garvey (Cornell) joins the casebook beginning with this new edition.The Sixth Edition, as in the past, includes some new cases, as well as updates in the notes that bring current issues of criminal law to the fore. New Power Points have been added to the casebook companion website. For more information and additional teaching materials, visit the companion site .

Joshua Dressler

Papers

Understanding Criminal Law

Rethinking Heat of Passion: A Defense in Search of a Rationale

When heterosexual men kill homosexual men: reflections on provocation law, sexual advances, and the reasonable man standard

Cases and Materials on Criminal Law

Study of Law Student Attitudes Regarding the Rights of Gay People to be Teachers