Mentally Misguided: How State of Mind Inquiries Ignore Psychological Reality and Overlook Cultural Differences

The law constantly tries to make sense of people’s thoughts. Did former NBA star Jayson Williams purposely cover up the shooting of his chauffeur? Did Texaco executives intentionally discriminate against employees based on race? Did WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers knowingly preside over massive fraud? Each of these questions, and legal liability itself, frequently rests upon insight into the mental states of various actors. By requiring a subjective inquiry into the human mind in dozens of legal disciplines, the law unsurprisingly calls for an understanding of the way people think. What is surprising, however, is that policymakers develop law related to the human mind without an understanding of the human mind itself. Outside of the legal context, this understanding continues to evolve as psychologists pursue research on how mental states are perceived and judged. In light of such research, particularly new studies that reveal cultural differences in mental state judgments, legal commentators now must question not only whether existing mental state standards diverge from true decision-making processes, but also whether such standards ignore cultural differences.