The psychological power of naming legislation after victims

Lawmakers frequently propose bills named after victims of tragic events to rally public support and memorialize those who died. A recent study evaluates whether reading these personal stories causes voters to support legislation they might otherwise question. The results indicate that attaching a victim’s narrative to a bill reliably boosts voter approval. This particular research was recently published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

Naming a law after an individual is a common occurrence in American politics at both the state and federal levels. National registries and local safety mandates are often proposed in the wake of highly publicized tragedies. Legal scholars have raised concerns about this practice for years. Reviewing these policies, critics worry that emotionally charged stories prompt lawmakers and voters to back ineffective or poorly drafted rules just to avoid appearing insensitive. Critics sometimes refer to this process as lawmaking by anecdote, arguing it diverts resources away from proven solutions.

Krystia Reed, a psychology researcher at the University of Texas at El Paso, led a research team to investigate the psychological mechanisms at play. They wanted to understand if a victim’s name or their story actually drives the public to support a proposed law. They also tested whether emotions like sympathy or negative perceptions of criminals influenced those decisions.

The team grounded their physical experiments in a sociological concept exploring policies enacted to soothe public panic. These are laws that often fail to reduce crime or improve safety in practical terms. Academics suggest that such legislation relies heavily on a mythical narrative featuring an easily identifiable villain and a highly sympathetic victim.

Humans are generally more willing to help a specific, identifiable victim rather than a large group of unseen people. Psychologists refer to this as the identifiable victim effect. The phenomenon suggests that stories create context and relevance that make information highly memorable and persuasive. A vivid story about a person in distress captures attention and evokes empathy much better than abstract statistics.

Free daily newsletter

For their first experiment, the investigators recruited 112 university students and presented them with text from a real legislative proposal. The bill aimed to restrict the use of solitary confinement in juvenile detention facilities. Half of the participants read the basic legal text describing the proposed regulations. The other half read the same text equipped with an added narrative about a teenager named Rosemary.

In the narrative condition, the text explained that Rosemary died by suicide after spending six weeks in solitary confinement. Her story included details about her history with depression and a statement from her family wishing the tragedy had been averted. The researchers designed this passage based on events that inspired an actual state law.

The results revealed a large difference in voter behavior based on the presentation format. Every single participant who read Rosemary’s story voted to support the bill. In contrast, only about three quarters of the group reading the standard legal text approved the measure.

The differences extended beyond just changing the final vote tallies. The researchers noted that the personal story helped subjects understand the often confusing legal language. Some members of the control group opposed the bill because they mistakenly thought it promoted solitary confinement, a practice they disliked. None of the participants who read the victim narrative showed this fundamental confusion.

To see if these patterns held true for community members and different types of laws, the research design was repeated. In the second experiment, 194 adults from a national online participant pool read a bill requiring drug and alcohol monitoring devices for people on parole. One group received only the plain text of the proposal. The experimental group read an addition explaining that the bill was inspired by a teenager killed in a collision caused by an intoxicated driver.

The narrative version again garnered much higher approval ratings. Nearly 80 percent of the readers who saw the victim’s story supported the monitoring requirements. In the group without the story, support only reached about 60 percent.

In this second phase, participants also completed questionnaires designed to measure their emotional states and existing political attitudes. Participants indicated how harsh they believed current laws were and how much they valued bodily autonomy. People were generally less supportive of the policy if they strongly believed in bodily autonomy or felt current laws were already too harsh. Yet, even when the researchers accounted for these pre-existing beliefs, the story still managed to push approval ratings higher.

Statistical models suggested that this heightened sympathy directly bridged the gap between reading the story and voting for the bill. The team initially suspected the narrative might cause participants to view the parolee in a less humanized light. The data proved this theory incorrect, as the story did not alter how the respondents viewed the humanity of the offenders.

The first two experiments combined the victim’s name and their story into a single package. To isolate which specific factor mattered most, Reed and her team designed a third experiment involving 365 undergraduate students. They separated the variables, giving some participants just the bill’s name, some just the narrative, and others both variables or neither variable.

The researchers found that the narrative itself is what primarily changes minds. Including a victim’s story boosted approval rates substantially compared to reading the bill without a story. Just adding the name to the top of the proposal led to minor increases in support on a graduated scale.

However, those slight differences related to the name change were not statistically significant in the primary measuring tools. The experiments demonstrate that humans rely on narrative structures to process information and make decisions. People feel more motivated to act when provided with a detailed story about someone’s life. In this context, that motivation translates to voting in favor of the specified legislation.

The researchers noted a few limitations to their conclusions. The bills selected for the academic study enjoyed relatively high baseline support even without the victim narratives attached. Testing highly controversial or strictly partisan policies might yield different results, as deep political beliefs could override emotional appeals. The experimental setting also meant participants did not face the real world consequences of enacting bad policies or spending taxpayer funds on ineffective measures.

Future investigations could explore whether certain types of victims draw more sympathy than others in a policymaking context. Some academic critics point out that media coverage disproportionately focuses on young, conventionally attractive victims. Testing demographic variables could reveal whether the narrative effect applies equally across all populations or if inherent biases shape who receives memorial laws in the first place.

A deeper dive into how information framing affects comprehension could also be useful. Since the first study indicated that a narrative helped voters better understand complex legal text, there might be a legitimate educational benefit to the practice. Determining how to provide helpful context without unduly coercing voters through raw emotion remains a challenge for lawmakers.

The study, “The Power of Victim Narrative: Eponymous Legislation Increases Voter Sympathy and Support,” was authored by Krystia Reed, Grace Hanzelin, Rubi M. Gonzales, and Melanie B. Fessinger.