Law Matters -- Less Than We Thought

Abstract

In a pre-registered 2×2×2 factorial between-subject randomized lab experiment with 61 federal judges, we test if the law influences judicial decisions, if it does so more under a rule than under a standard, and how its influence compares to that of legally irrelevant sympathies. The judges were given realistic materials and a relatively long period of time (50 minutes) to decide a run-of-the-mill auto accident case. We find at best weak evidence that the law matters or that rules constrain more than standards, and no evidence of a sympathy effect. Unexpectedly, we find that many judges opted for full compensation even when the law would seem to require a cap on damages.

Keywords: judicial decisionmaking, experiment, rules versus standards, choice of law, conflict of law

JEL Classification: K00, K13, K40, K41