The socio-cognitive perspective: Why does “the cognitive” matter?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2303Keywords:
law, sociology, cognitive science, neuroscience, cognitive biasesAbstract
This article explores the socio-cognitive perspective, emphasizing the necessity of interdisciplinarity in the social sciences. It critiques the fragmentation of academic disciplines, arguing that excessive specialization stifles innovation and prevents the integration of knowledge across fields. The discussion highlights how scientific progress has become increasingly self-referential, leading to a decline in groundbreaking discoveries. A core focus is the interdisciplinary study of law, which the article positions as a “super-meme”—a biosocial construct influenced by cultural, psychological, and biological factors. The work explores how cognitive biases, neuroscience, and behavioral insights shape legal reasoning and decision-making. It also delves into neurolaw, analyzing the implications of cognitive science on legal responsibility, free will, and normative structures. The study ultimately argues for a paradigm shift in the social sciences and legal studies, advocating for a cognitive approach that integrates biology, psychology, and sociology. By bridging these disciplines, the article suggests that we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of law and human behavior.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
19
Views
|
2
Downloads
|
|
21
Total
|
|
References
Acquaviva, S., 1993. La strategia del gene. Bisogni e sistema sociale. Rome/Bari: Laterza.
Almodóvar, M.Á., 2015. Intestino, secondo cervello. Milan: Vallardi.
Anolli, L., and Mantovani, F., 2012. Come funziona la nostra mente. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, Spa.
Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J., 1992. The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture [online]. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195060232.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195060232.001.0001
Blackmore, S., 1999. The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press.
Blumer, H., 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Boella, L., 2011. La Morale e La Natura. In: A. Lavazza and G. Sartori, eds., Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, Spa.
Boudon, R., 1969. Relazioni Tra Proprietà Individuali e Proprietà Collettive. In: R. Boudon and P.F. Lazarsfeld, eds., Proprietà individuali e proprietà collettive: un problema di analisi ecologica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Boudon, R., 2009. Effets Pervers et Ordre Sociale. Paris: Quadrige/PUF.
Brożek, B., and Hage, J., 2021. Introduction: Between Law and the Cognitive Sciences – A Manifesto. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 1–14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.001
Carlsmith, K.M., 2008. On Justifying Punishment: The Discrepancy between Words and Actions. Social Justice Research [online], 21(2), 119–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x
Chiassoni, P., 2021. The Law and Cognitive Sciences Enterprise: A Few Analytic Notes. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 490-506. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.023
Chomsky, N., and Foucault, M., 2006. The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature [online]. New York: The New Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.32047651 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.32047651
Cipriani, R., 2020. Body and Biology. Academicus International Scientific Journal [online], 21(11), 46–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2020.21.04 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2020.21.04
Collins, R., 1975. Conflict Sociology. Toward an Explanatory Science. New York/San Francisco/London: Academic Press.
Cominelli, L., 2018. Cognition of the Law. Toward a Cognitive Sociology of Law and Behavior. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89348-8
Crespi, F., 1989. Azione sociale e potere. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Damasio, A.R., 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam’s and Sons.
Danziger, S., Levav, J., and Avnaim-Pesso, L., 2011. Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [online], 108(17), 6889–92. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
De Caro, M., 2011. Libero Arbitrio e Neuroscienze. In: A. Lavazza and G. Sartori, eds., Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, Spa.
De Cataldo Neuburger, L., 1988. Psicologia della testimonianza e prova testimoniale. Milan: Giuffrè.
Ducato, R., and Strowel, A., 2021. Legal Design Perspectives: Theoretical and Practical Insights from the Field. Turin: Ledizioni.
Edwards, H.T., 1992. The Growing Disjunction between Legal Education and the Legal Profession. Michigan Law Review [online], 91(1), 2191–2219. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1289788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1289788
Elias, N., 1982. La civiltà delle buone maniere. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Farahany, N.A., 2012. A Neurological Foundation for Freedom. Stanford Technology Law Review [online], 4. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254588892_A_Neurological_Foundation_for_Freedom
Farahany, N.A., 2019. The Costs of Changing Our Minds. Emory Law Journal [online], 69(1), 76–108. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol69/iss1/2/
Fodor, J.A., 1983. The Modularity of Mind [online]. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
Frank, J., 1949. Law and the Modern Mind. London: Stevens & Sons Limited.
Franks, D.D., 2010. Neurosociology. The Nexus between Neuroscience and Social Psychology [online]. New York: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5531-9_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5531-9_7
Fuselli, S., 2014. Diritto, neuroscienze, filosofia: Un itinerario. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Gallino, L., 1982. Proprietà dei sistemi nella riproduzione biologica e culturale. In: M. Ingrosso, S. Manghi and V. Parisi, eds., Sociobiologia Possibile. Neodarwinismo e scienze dell’uomo: La ricerca di un’alternativa al determinismo biologico. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Gallino, L., 1987. L’attore sociale. Biologia, cultura e intelligenza artificiale. Turin: Scientifica Einaudi.
Gazzaniga, M.S., 1985. The Social Brain. Discovering the Networks of The Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gianola, A., 1997. Evoluzione e Diritto. Rivista di Diritto Civile, no. 4, 413–29.
Giunta, C., 2017. E se non fosse la buona battaglia? Sul futuro dell’istruzione umanistica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Goodenough, O.R., 2009. Neuroscientific Developments as a Legal Challenge. In: A. Santosuosso, ed., Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Como/Pavia: Ibis.
Goodenough, O.R., and Prehn, K., 2006. A Neuroscientific Approach to Normative Judgment in Law and Justice. In: S. Zeki and O.R. Goodenough, eds., Law and the Brain [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570103.003.0005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570103.003.0005
Goodenough, O.R., and Tucker, M., 2010. Law and Cognitive Neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 6(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523
Green, J., and Cohen, J., 2006. For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything. In: S. Zeki and O.R. Goodenough, eds., Law and the Brain [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570103.003.0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570103.003.0011
Greenberg, J., and Cohen, R.L., 1982. Why Justice? Normative and Instrumental Interpretations. In: J. Greenberg and R.L. Cohen, eds., Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New Haven/London: Academic Press.
Gruter, M., 1992. An Ethological Perspective on Law and Biology. In: R.D. Masters and M. Gruter, eds., The Sense of Justice. Biological Foundations of Law. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Hage, J., 2021. Are the Cognitive Sciences Relevant for Law? In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 17-49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.002
Hage, J., and Waltermann, A., 2021. Responsibility, Liability, and Retribution. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 255-88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.013
Haye, A., Morales, R., and Niño, S., 2017. The Social/Neuroscience: Bridging or Polarizing Culture and Biology? In: A. Ibáñez, L. Sedeño and A.M. García, eds., Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link [online]. Cham: Springer International, 217-39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_10
Hitlin, S., and Vaisey, S., 2013. The New Sociology of Morality. Annual Review of Sociology [online], 39(1), 51–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145628 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145628
Iagulli, P., 2011. La sociologia delle emozioni. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Jones, O.D., 1999. Law, Emotions, and Behavioral Biology. In: L.A. Frolik, W. Fikentscher and G. Dieker, eds., Law & Evolutionary Biology. Portola Valley: Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research.
Jones, O.D., 2001. Time-Shifted Rationality and the Law of Law’s Leverage: Behavioral Economics Meets Behavioral Biology. Northwestern University Law Review, 95(4), 1141–1206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.249419
Keizer, A.G., Tiemeijer, W., and Bovens, M., eds., 2019. Why Knowing What To Do Is Not Enough: A Realistic Perspective on Self-Reliance [online]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1725-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1725-8
Kurek, Ł., 2021. Law, Folk Psychology and Cognitive Science. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 55-85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.004
Leroy, M., 2008. Tax Sociology. Sociopolitical Issues for a Dialogue with Economists. Socio-Logos. Revue de l’association Française de Sociologie [online], no. 3, 1–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/socio-logos.2073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/socio-logos.2073
Levy, N., 2014. Is Neurolaw Conceptually Confused? The Journal of Ethics [online], 18(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9168-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-014-9168-z
Libet, B., et al., 1983. Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential) - The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain [online], 106(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623
Mäki, U., Walsh, A., and Fernández Pinto, M., eds. 2018. Scientific Imperialism. Exploring the Boundaries of Interdisciplinarity [online]. London/New York: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315163673
Mascini, P., 2016. Law and Behavioral Sciences : Why We Need Less Purity Rather than More. Erasmus Lecture Series [online], 41. The Hague. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2786162
Masters, R.D., 1992. The Problem of Justice in Contemporary Legal Thought. In: R.D. Masters and M. Gruter, eds., The Sense of Justice. Biological Foundations of Law. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Mead, G.H. (with C.W. Morris, ed. and intro.), 1972. Mind, Self & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H., 1966. Mente, sé e società. Florence: Giunti.
Meloni, M., and Testa, G., 2014. Scrutinizing the Epigenetics Revolution. BioSocieties [online], 9(4), 431–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.22
Meyering, T.C., 2000. Physicalism and Downward Causation in Psychology and the Special Sciences. Inquiry [online], 43(2), 181–202. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/002017400407744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/002017400407744
Miller, G.A., 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review [online], 63(2), 281-302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Monti, A., 2008. Psicologia della decisione e tutela del consumatore. In: R. Caterina, ed., I fondamenti cognitivi del diritto. Turin: Mondadori.
Morin, E., 1977. La méthode. 1. La nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
Murphy, E.R.D., 2022. Collective Cognitive Capital. William & Mary Law Review, 63(4), 1347–1408.
Nagel, T., 1974. What Is It like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review [online], 83(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
Oliverio, A., 2012. Cervello. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.
Pałka, P., 2021. Private Law and Cognitive Science. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 217–48. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.011
Pardo, M.S., and Patterson, D., 2013. Minds, Brains, and Law. The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812134.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812134.001.0001
Park, M., Leahey, E., and Funk, R.J., 2023. Papers and Patents Are Becoming Less Disruptive over Time. Nature [online], 613(7942), 138–44. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
Pattaro, E., ed., 2005. The Law and the Right. A Reappraisal of the Reality That Ought to Be. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pineda, J.A. 2009. Preface. In: J.A. Pineda, ed., Mirror Neuron Systems. The Role of Mirroring Processes in Social Cognition [online]. New York: Springer. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-59745-479-7
Pockett, S., 2007. The Concept of Free Will: Philosophy, Neuroscience and the Law. Behavioral Sciences and the Law [online], 25(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.743 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.743
Posner, R.A., 1987. The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987. Harvard Law Review [online], 100(4), 761. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341093
Puppo, F., 2021. Oltre la diarchia. Alcune riflessioni sul rapporto fra ragione ed emozioni. E sullo statuto di queste. In: M. Manzin, F. Puppo and S. Tomasi, eds., Studies on Argumentation and Legal Philosophy / 4. Ragioni Ed Emozioni Nella Decisione Giudiziale [online]. Trento: Quaderni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università degli Studi di Trento, 7-18. Available at: https://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/827340/2/COLLANA%20QUADERNI%20VOL%2050.pdf
Rachlinski, J.J., 1982. Cognitive Errors, Individual Differences, and Paternalism. In: B. Brooks-Gordon and M. Freeman, eds., Law and Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Rachlinski, J.J., 2000. The ‘New’ Law and Psychology: A Reply to Critics, Skeptics, and Cautious Supporters. Cornell Law Review [online], 85. Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/791/
Reutskaja, E., et al., 2021. Cognitive and Affective Consequences of Information and Choice Overload. In: R. Viale, ed., Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality [online]. London/New York: Routledge. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315658353-50/cognitive-affective-consequences-information-choice-overload-elena-reutskaja-sheena-iyengar-barbara-fasolo-raffaella-misuraca?context=ubx&refId=3f6e6cc3-596b-47d7-ac40-e313e954ee2a
Rose, H., and Rose, S., 2014. Geni, cellule e cervelli. speranze e delusioni della nuova biologia. Turin: Codice.
Rossi, A., et al., 2019. Legal Design Patterns: Towards a New Language for Legal Information Design. In: E. Schweighofer, F. Kummer and A. Saarenpää, eds., Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 22nd International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2019. Bern: Weblaw.
Roversi, C., 2021. Cognitive Science and the Nature of Law. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 99–137. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.006
Runciman, W.G., 1970. Sociology in Its Place. Cambridge University Press.
Sacco, R., 2015. Il diritto muto. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Sapolsky, R.M., 2006. The Frontal Cortex and the Criminal Justice System. In: S. Zeki and O.R. Goodenough, eds., Law and the Brain. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198570103.003.0012
Sartor, G. (with E. Pattaro, ed.), 2005. Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to Law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sartori, G., Lavazza, A., and Sammicheli, L., 2011. Cervello, diritto e giustizia. In: A. Lavazza and G. Sartori, eds., Neuroetica. Scienze del cervello, filosofia e libero arbitrio [online]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Available at: https://doi.org/10.978.8815/303936
Schütz, A., 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
Searle, J.R., 1997. The Mistery of Consciousness. New York: The NY Review of Books.
Service, O., et al., 2014. EAST: Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural Insights [online]. London/Edinburgh/Cardiff: Nesta. Available at: https://www.bi.team/publications/east-four-simple-ways-to-apply-behavioural-insights/
Stelmach, J., 2021. The Cognitive Approach in Legal Science and Practice: A History of Four Revolutions. In: B. Brożek, J. Hage and N. Vincent, eds., Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences [online]. Cambridge University Press, 507–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623056.024
Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L., 1992. The Psychological Foundations of Culture. In: J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, eds., The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture [online]. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195060232.003.0002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195060232.003.0002
van Rooij, B., and Fine, A., 2021. The Opportunity Approach to Compliance. In: B. van Rooij and D.D. Sokol, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458.035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458
Vick, D.W., 2004. Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law. Journal of Law and Society [online], 31(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2004.00286.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2004.00286.x
Wallerstein, I., et al., 1996. Open the Social Sciences. Report of the Gubelkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503616219
Westermarck, E., 1908. The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas. London: Macmillan.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Luigi Cominelli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
