1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 17, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 17, 2021

The Reasonable Person Standard: Psychological and Legal Perspectives

Abstract

In criminal cases of self-defense and provocation, and civil cases of negligence, culpability is often decided with reference to how a reasonably prudent person (RPP) would have behaved in similar circumstances. The RPP is said to be an objective standard in that it eschews consideration of a defendant's unique background or characteristics. We discuss theory and evidence suggesting that in morally relevant judgments, including those involving negligence, self-defense, and provocation, the tendency to rely on the self—on one's own values and predilections—dominates considerations of the RPP. We consider subjective standards that have been proposed as alternatives to the RPP and review research on this topic. We conclude by considering avenues for future research, particularly addressing conditions in which self-standards of reasonableness are most likely to prevail.

Keyword(s): blame, criminal law, reasonable person, self, self-in-social judgment, tort law
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400
2021-10-13
2025-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/17/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abwender DA, Hough K. 2001. Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on US participants' judgment and sentencing recommendations. J. Soc. Psychol. 141:5603–15
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alicke MD. 1993. Egocentric standards of conduct evaluation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14:2171–92
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alicke MD, Davis TL. 1990. Capacity responsibility in social evaluation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 16:3465–74
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alicke MD, Dunning DA, Krueger JI 2005. The Self in Social Judgment East Sussex, UK: Psychology
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Alicke MD, LoSchiavo FM, Zerbst J, Zhang S. 1997. The person who out performs me is a genius: maintaining perceived competence in upward social comparison. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73:4781–89
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Alicke MD, Yurak TJ, Vredenburg DS. 1996. Using personal attitudes to judge others: the roles of outcomes and consensus. J. Res. Personal. 30:1103–19
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Alicke MD, Zell E, Guenther CL. 2013. Social self-analysis: constructing, protecting, and enhancing the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:173–234
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Am. Law Inst 1962. Model Penal Code: Official Draft and Explanatory Notes Philadelphia: Am. Law Inst.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Beauregard KS, Dunning D. 1998. Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:3606–21
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Blumenthal JA. 1998. The reasonable woman standard: a meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law Hum. Behav. 22:133–57
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown B. 1964. The “ordinary man” in provocation: Anglo-Saxon attitudes and “unreasonable non-Englishmen. .” Int. Comp. Law Q. 13:1203–35
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Burt DL, DeMello LR. 2003. Attribution of rape blame as a function of victim gender and sexuality, and perceived similarity to the victim. J. Homosex. 43:239–57
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cutler BL, Moran G, Narby DJ. 1992. Jury selection in insanity defense cases. J. Res. Personal. 26:2165–82
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Devine DJ, Caughlin DE 2014. Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:2109–34
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R, Pryce J 2001. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:3622–727
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dinos S, Burrowes N, Hammond K, Cunliffe C. 2015. A systematic review of juries' assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making?. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 43:136–49
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunlap EE, Hodell EC, Golding JM, Wasarhaley NE. 2012. Mock jurors’ perception of stalking: the impact of gender and expressed fear. Sex Roles 66:5–6405–17
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunning D 2012. The relation of self to social perception. Handbook of Self and Identity MR Leary, JP Tangney 481–501 New York: Guilford
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunning D, Cohen GL. 1992. Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63:3341–55
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dunning D, Hayes AF. 1996. Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71:2213–19
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellison v. Brady 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir 1991.)
  22. Graham J, Meindl P, Beall E. 2012a. Integrating the streams of morality research: the case of political ideology. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21:6373–77
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J. 2012b. The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLOS ONE 7:12e50092
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Grubb AR, Harrower J. 2009. Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: an analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. J. Sex. Aggress. 15:163–81
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gutek BA, O'Connor MA, Melancon R, Stockdale MS, Geer TM, Done RS 1999. The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: a multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychol. Public Policy Law 5:3596–629
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Haegerich TM, Salerno JM, Bottoms BL. 2013. Are the effects of juvenile offender stereotypes maximized or minimized by jury deliberation?. Psychol. Public Policy Law 19:181–97
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heller KJ. 1998. Beyond the reasonable man? A sympathetic but critical assessment of the use of subjective standards of reasonableness in self-defense and provocation cases. Am. J. Crim. Law 26:11–120
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Herek GM. 1988. Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: correlates and gender differences. J. Sex Res. 25:4451–77
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kahneman D, Miller DT. 1986. Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol. Rev. 93:2136–53
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kelley PJ, Wendt LA. 2002. What judges tell juries about negligence: a review of pattern jury instructions. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 77:587–682
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Krueger J 2000. The projective perception of the social world: a building block of social comparison processes. Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and Research J Suls, L Wheeler, 323–51 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Louden JE, Skeem JL. 2007. Constructing insanity: jurors’ prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision-making. Behav. Sci. Law 25:4449–70
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazzella R, Feingold A. 1994. The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:151315–38
     [Google Scholar]
  34. McCord MA, Joseph DL, Dhanani LY, Beus JM. 2018. A meta-analysis of sex and race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:2137–63
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Miller AD, Perry R. 2012. The reasonable person. NYU Law Rev 87:323–92
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mitchell TL, Haw RM, Pfeifer JE, Meissner CA. 2005. Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: a meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law Hum. Behav. 29:6621–37
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Northrop C, Rozan KR. 2017. Kids will be kids: time for a “reasonable child” standard for the proof of objective mens rea elements. Maine Law Rev. 69:109–35
     [Google Scholar]
  38. O'Connor MA. 1998. Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature PhD Diss., Univ. Ariz Tucson, AZ:
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Perry EL, Kulik CT, Bourhis AC. 2004. The reasonable woman standard: effects on sexual harassment court decisions. Law Hum. Behav. 28:9–27
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Phillips LT, Lowery BS. 2018. Herd invisibility: the psychology of racial privilege. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27:156–62
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ross L, Greene D, House P. 1977. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13:3279–301
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ross L, Ward A 1996. Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Values and Knowledge T Brown, ES Reed, E Turiel 103–35 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rotundo M, Nguyen DH, Sackett PR. 2001. A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:5914–22
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Salerno JM, Najdowski CJ, Bottoms BL, Harrington E, Kemner G, Dave R 2015. Excusing murder? Conservative jurors’ acceptance of the gay-panic defense. Psychol. Public Policy Law 21:124–34
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Scalet SP. 2003. Fitting the people they are meant to serve: reasonable persons in the American legal system. Law Philos 22:75–110
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Seavey WA. 1927. Negligence. Subjective or objective?. Harvard Law Rev. 41:11–28
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Seelau EP, Seelau SM, Poorman PB. 2003. Gender and role-based perceptions of domestic abuse: Does sexual orientation matter?. Behav. Sci. Law 21:2199–214
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Shaver KG. 1985. The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness New York: Springer-Verlag
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Simpson A, Alicke MD, Gordon E, Rose D 2020. The reasonably prudent person, or me?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 50:5313–23
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Spitzberg BH. 2002. The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma Violence Abuse 3:4261–88
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Stapel DA, Suls JE. 2007. Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology London: Psychology
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Thurstone LL, Chave EJ. 1929. The Measurement of Attitude Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Tobia KP. 2018. How people judge what is reasonable. Ala. Law Rev. 70:293–359
     [Google Scholar]
  54. United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir 1947.)
  55. Wiener RL, Hurt L, Russell B, Mannen K, Gasper C. 1997. Perceptions of sexual harassment: the effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. . Law Hum. Behav. 21:171–93
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiener RL, Watts BA, Goldkamp KH, Gasper C. 1995. Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments. Law Hum. Behav. 19:3263–81
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Westen P. 2008. Individualizing the reasonable person in criminal law. Crim. Law Philos. 2:2137–62
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Winter RJ, Vallano JP. 2012. The impact of psychological injuries on sexual harassment determinations. Psychol. Inj. Law. 5:3–4208–20
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Zimmerman DM, Myers B. 2013. Perspective taking, gender, and legal instructions in a sexual harassment case. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 13:3171–91
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400
Loading
The Reasonable Person Standard: Psychological and Legal Perspectives
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 17, 123 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-020400
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error