The automatic influence of advocacy on lawyers and novices
David E. Melnikoff () and
Nina Strohminger
Additional contact information
David E. Melnikoff: Yale University
Nina Strohminger: The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania
Nature Human Behaviour, 2020, vol. 4, issue 12, 1258-1264
Abstract:
Abstract It has long been known that advocating for a cause can alter the advocate’s beliefs. Yet a guiding assumption of many advocates is that the biasing effect of advocacy is controllable. Lawyers, for instance, are taught that they can retain unbiased beliefs while advocating for their clients and that they must do so to secure just outcomes. Across ten experiments (six preregistered; N = 3,104) we show that the biasing effect of advocacy is not controllable but automatic. Merely incentivizing people to advocate altered a range of beliefs about character, guilt and punishment. This bias appeared even in beliefs that are highly stable, when people were financially incentivized to form true beliefs and among professional lawyers, who are trained to prevent advocacy from biasing their judgements.
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)
Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00943-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nathum:v:4:y:2020:i:12:d:10.1038_s41562-020-00943-3
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/nathumbehav/
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-00943-3
Access Statistics for this article
Nature Human Behaviour is currently edited by Stavroula Kousta
More articles in Nature Human Behaviour from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().