False Consensus Bias in Contract Interpretation
35 Pages Posted: 7 Dec 2007 Last revised: 9 Jul 2008
Date Written: July 8, 2008
Abstract
Psychologists call the propensity to believe that one's views are the normal views even when they are not false consensus bias. In the interpretation of contracts, false consensus bias should be of special concern when a dispute arises over whether an event fits within contractual language. For psychologists have also found that consensus about category membership dissipates when people are presented with non-paradigmatic cases. We all agree that a table is a piece of furniture, but people hold different views about the status of, say, lamps.
In this article, we report experimental studies conducted with lay people and judges that present a problem for the law of contracts. When lay individuals are presented with scenarios relevant to the language of insurance contracts that have led to differences of opinion among the courts, they do not understand contractual language uniformly, and because they are subject to false consensus bias, believe that their interpretation is the normal interpretation, even when it is not. This is true whatever the scenario, whatever the interpretation, and whichever party will be assisted by one interpretation or the other. When judges were presented with the same scenarios, they also exhibited a form of false consensus bias. The solution lies in judges taking far more seriously the disagreement of other judges in determining whether language is clear, or whether it is subject to multiple interpretations. Otherwise, litigants may be subjected to a form of lottery in which they are subject to the particular idiosyncratic interpretation of the judge assigned to their case. Concern about the reasonable expectations of the parties should also be taken into account.
Keywords: contracts, interpretation, insurance, bias, consensus
JEL Classification: K12
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifications of 'Light' Paternalism
-
Towards a New Model of Consumer Protection: The Problem of Inflated Transaction Costs
By Jeff Sovern
-
An Offer You Cannot Negotiate: Some Thoughts on the Economics of Standard Form Consumer Contracts
-
E-Contract Doctrine 2.0: Standard Form Contracting in the Age of Online User Participation
By Samuel Becher and Tal Zarsky
-
Behavioural Economics in Unfair Contract Terms Cautions and Considerations
By Michael G. Faure and Hanneke A. Luth
-
By Rina Kikuchi and Kazuki Onji