IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-735205.html

Reducing Sympathy Bias: The Impact of Statutory Interpretation Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Ori Katz

Abstract

This article examines the moderating effect of statutory interpretative methods on sympathy bias in legal decision-making. Previous research has shown that sympathy toward litigants can lead to biased decisions, particularly in cases of legal ambiguity. Two preregistered studies of 300 laypersons and 339 legal practitioners experimentally tested the effect of various interpretative methods on sympathy bias. The results reaffirm the existence of sympathy bias and demonstrate that participants are less swayed by sympathy when instructed to interpret the law by focusing on its plain meaning rather than the legislature’s intention or policy considerations. These findings suggest that a focus on the text of a legal rule can serve as a debiasing technique against sympathy bias. Interestingly, this moderating effect was not mediated by the effect of the interpretative method on the rule’s clarity or the decision’s predictability. The findings contribute to ongoing debates about judicial bias and statutory interpretation. To seek justice is to seek something free of bias. —Aristotle

Suggested Citation

  • Ori Katz, 2026. "Reducing Sympathy Bias: The Impact of Statutory Interpretation Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(1), pages 207-236.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/735205
    DOI: 10.1086/735205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/735205
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/735205
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/735205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/735205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.