When lawmakers name bills after victims of tragedy – such as Megan’s Law or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 – public support surges, but this emotional boost may come at the expense of sound policymaking, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
The study, published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, examined whether eponymous bills – those named for victims – receive more public backing than identical bills without a name or story. Across three experiments, the answer was clear: They do.
“Our research shows that adding a victim’s name and story to a bill can dramatically increase public support, even when the policy itself hasn’t changed,” said lead author Krystia Reed, JD, PhD, of The University of Texas at El Paso. “Victim narratives don’t just make legislation more memorable – they make it more persuasive. Sympathy can drive approval, which means voters and lawmakers may prioritize emotion over evidence.”
Researchers conducted a series of experiments involving more than 670 participants, including undergraduate students and a national sample of adults recruited online. In each experiment, participants read a proposed piece of legislation either with a victim’s name and story or without.
After reading the bill, participants were asked to do three things: first, vote on whether they approved or disapproved of the legislation, just as they might in a real election. Next, they completed simple attention checks to confirm they understood the bill’s content. Finally, they answered questions about their emotional reactions (e.g., how sympathetic they felt toward victims or perpetrators) and whether they viewed those groups as fully human or less human. These measures helped researchers explore the psychological factors behind support for victim-named laws.
Participants were significantly more likely to approve bills that included a victim’s narrative. In fact, the story – not just the name – was the driving force behind increased support. Sympathy emerged as a predictive factor, suggesting emotional reactions can overshadow rational evaluation of the policy itself.
The findings raise concerns about “crime control theater” and “lawmaking by anecdote,” where emotionally charged cases lead to quick legislative fixes that may fail to address broader issues, according to Reed. Some eponymous laws, such as sex offender registries, have been criticized for unintended consequences, including increased homelessness and recidivism.
“Stories are powerful tools in shaping public opinion,” she said. “But lawmakers should be cautious. Support driven by emotion rather than substance can result in ineffective or even harmful policies.”
The researchers call for greater scrutiny of these bills and suggest that policymakers weigh evidence-based solutions over emotional appeal. While victim narratives can help voters understand complex legislation, they also risk tipping the scales toward policies that feel right but don’t work.
Republished courtesy of American Psychological Association