Beyond lay justice: How varied legal training fosters rule‐based legal thinking

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated the role of varied legal training in rule-based legal thinking (RLT)—the capacity to apply legal rules and principles even when they conflict with lay conceptions of justice in legal decision-making.

Methods

To address these objectives, we conducted two online studies involving a diverse sample of participants (N
_{Study 1} = 281; N
_{Study 2} = 13,690). In Study 1, participants evaluated case-specific civil vignettes to determine defendant liability and compensation amounts, followed by a self-report measure capturing the underlying reasoning behind their verdicts. In Study 2, we evaluated RLT using a broader, more generalized assessment instrument.

Results

Study 1 showed that legally trained participants (including law practitioners and law students) exhibited a significantly stronger propensity to apply RLT in legal judgements and made more lenient judgements regarding liability and compensation. Study 2 showed that both formal and informal legal training were significantly associated with higher levels of RLT. Furthermore, the association between legal training and RLT was statistically accounted for primarily by differences in applied legal knowledge and, to a lesser extent, by a serial indirect pathway involving applied legal knowledge and endorsement of Care and Fairness as measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire.

Conclusion

These findings provide support for the potential role of legal training in RLT and offer insights into potential pathways for strengthening laypeople’s capacity to engage in rule-based legal decision-making.