Suckers in Law

The fear of being suckered is such a strong social and psychological phenomenon that political movements, and bodies of law, have been built around it. This review offers a framework for understanding how the psychology of feeling suckered affects legal decision-making. Feeling exploited or scammed is a core and widely shared aversion, and yet also a malleable construct, subject to framing effects and triggered (or untriggered) by subtle situational cues. The stakes for the sucker inference are high; people worried about being cheated predictably react by refusing to cooperate in prosocial activities, and by retaliating. The flight-or-fight response has deep implications for legal decision-making, undermining investment in cooperative enterprises, dispute settlement, and efficient social policy. Finally, the review considers the unique ambivalence toward suckers themselves—the competing feelings of sympathy and scorn—and how that ambivalence plays into underreporting of legal harms, misattributions of consent, and victim blaming. I conclude by suggesting that the ambivalence offers opportunities for productive legal interventions to reward trust.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Published
2025-05-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-062124-122620
Primary Topic
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Suckers in Law

Tess Wilkinson‐Ryan
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
article

Suckers in Law

Tess Wilkinson‐Ryan
article en

Abstract

The fear of being suckered is such a strong social and psychological phenomenon that political movements, and bodies of law, have been built around it. This review offers a framework for understanding how the psychology of feeling suckered affects legal decision-making. Feeling exploited or scammed is a core and widely shared aversion, and yet also a malleable construct, subject to framing effects and triggered (or untriggered) by subtle situational cues. The stakes for the sucker inference are high; people worried about being cheated predictably react by refusing to cooperate in prosocial activities, and by retaliating. The flight-or-fight response has deep implications for legal decision-making, undermining investment in cooperative enterprises, dispute settlement, and efficient social policy. Finally, the review considers the unique ambivalence toward suckers themselves—the competing feelings of sympathy and scorn—and how that ambivalence plays into underreporting of legal harms, misattributions of consent, and victim blaming. I conclude by suggesting that the ambivalence offers opportunities for productive legal interventions to reward trust.

Annual Review of Law and Social ScienceVol. 21(1)
William Carey University (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Suckers in Law — Tess Wilkinson‐Ryan · Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS