Abstract
Behavioural law and economics has established a burgeoning research agenda investigating the impact of bias and heuristics on legal decision-making. One of the most important behavioural contributions concerns the impact of framing on choice. The present article expands this line of scholarship by developing a novel under which lawyers' attachment to objectivity and neutrality is assumed to militate against frames challenging the profession's underlying norms. More specifically, the hypothesis expects the attachment of legally irrelevant political motivation to legal arguments to decrease their attractiveness. The is tested in an experimental setting accounting for a varying degree of legal indeterminacy in the domain of European Union law. The experimental results show support for the hypothesis: a political frame made law students 16% to 19% more likely to select the apolitical legal option.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
