Premium
Evidence for the Common Law as a Hypothesis‐Generating Tool for Conflict Resolution: What Is Fair?
Author(s) -
Shotland R. Lance,
Hyers Lauri
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02449.x
Subject(s) - possession (linguistics) , psychology , neglect , object (grammar) , common law , social psychology , test (biology) , conflict resolution , law , resolution (logic) , welfare , political science , computer science , artificial intelligence , paleontology , philosophy , linguistics , psychiatry , biology
Commentators have suggested that the conflict‐resolution literature has progressed slowly. Another paradigm that may be used to generate experimentally testable hypotheses comes from the common law. Four scenario‐based experiments are reported that were used to test hypotheses from a common law called adverse possession. One of three disputes involving a lost child, an automobile, and a patent were described in scenarios that subjects read and then rated using identical scales across scenarios. The scales measured the degree of ownership, neglect of the original owner, investment of the adverse possessor, and welfare of the disputed object. Whether the seizure of the disputed object was open and notorious and was continuous were statistically significant, while the results of the amount of time the possession was held by the adverse possessor was not. The common law has been shaped by judicial decisions that mirror social evolution and may reflect variables that people and nations can use to resolve conflicts.