Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2132550
 


 



What's on First?: Organizing the Casebook and Molding the Mind


Donald G. Gifford


University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Joseph Leonard Kroart


University of Maryland, College Park

Brian M. Jones


Villanova University, Sociology

Cheryl Cortemeglia


University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

2013

Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 45, 2013, p. 97-
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-46

Abstract:     
This study empirically tests the proposition that law students adopt different conceptions of the judge’s role in adjudication based on whether they first study intentional torts, negligence, or strict liability. The authors conducted an anonymous survey of more than 450 students enrolled in eight law schools at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the first semester of law school. The students were prompted to indicate to what extent they believed the judge’s role to be one of rule application and, conversely, to what extent it was one of considering social, economic, and ideological factors. The survey found that while all three groups of students shifted toward a belief that judges consider social, economic, and ideological factors, the degree of the shift differed in a statistically significant way depending on which torts their professors taught first. These differences persisted throughout the semester, even after they studied other torts. Further, these differences were observed even when the analysis controlled for law school ranking and were more pronounced among students attending the highest ranked schools.

In interpreting the survey results, the authors employ sociologist Erving Goffman’s theory of “frame analysis” and the work of cognitive psychologists including Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman on “anchoring.” The Article concludes that the category of tort liability to which students are first exposed affects the “frame” or “lens” through which they view the judicial process. This frame becomes anchored and persists throughout the study of other tort categories. The lessons about the nature of the judging process learned implicitly through the professor’s choice of topic sequence may be even more important than the substantive topics themselves.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 39

Keywords: law students, judges, frame analysis, tort liability, judicial process, anchoring, casebook, torts casebook, topic sequence

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 21, 2012 ; Last revised: July 12, 2013

Suggested Citation

Gifford, Donald G. and Kroart, Joseph Leonard and Jones, Brian M. and Cortemeglia, Cheryl, What's on First?: Organizing the Casebook and Molding the Mind (2013). Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 45, 2013, p. 97-; U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-46. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2132550

Contact Information

Donald G. Gifford (Contact Author)
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law ( email )
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
United States
Joseph Leonard Kroart
University of Maryland, College Park ( email )
College Park, MD 20742
United States
Brian M. Jones
Villanova University, Sociology ( email )
Villanova, PA 19085
United States
(610) 519-4784 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.homepage.villanova.edu/brian.jones
Cheryl Cortemeglia
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law ( email )
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 833
Downloads: 113
Download Rank: 144,575
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Disaggregating
By Elizabeth Burch

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.484 seconds