Naive Cynicism: Maintaining False Perceptions in Policy Debates

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Naive Cynicism: Maintaining False Perceptions in Policy Debates

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: Naive Cynicism: Maintaining False Perceptions in Policy Debates
Author: Hanson, Jon; Benforado, Adam

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Adam Benforado & Jon Hanson, Naive Cynicism: Maintaining False Perceptions in Policy Debates, 57 Emory L.J. 499 (2008).
Access Status: At the direction of the depositing author this work is not currently accessible through DASH.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: This is the second article in a multi-part series. In the first part, The Great Attributional Divide, the authors suggested that a major rift runs across many of our major policy debates based on contrasting attributional tendencies (dispositionist and situationist). This article explores how dispositionism maintains its dominance despite the fact that it misses so much of what actually moves us. It argues that the answer lies in a subordinate dynamic and discourse, naïve cynicism: the basic subconscious mechanism by which dispositionists discredit and dismiss situationist insights and their proponents. Without it, the dominant person schema - dispositionism - would be far more vulnerable to challenge and change, and the more accurate person schema - situationism - less easily and effectively attacked. Naïve cynicism is thus critically important to explaining how and why certain legal policies manage to carry the day.
Published Version: http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/57/57.3/Benforado_Hanson.pdf
Other Sources: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1106690
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3181222

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters