Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 32(2), May 2026, 109-127; doi:10.1037/law0000476
Legislators often propose bills in honor of a victim following a tragic event involving public outrage (e.g., AMBER Alerts, Megan’s Law). Such bills and subsequent laws that involve a victim’s name and story are known as eponymous legislation. Legal commentators have raised concerns that this legislation garners unwarranted emotional support from the public. We conducted three experiments to empirically test whether eponymous legislation received greater public support than legislation without a victim’s name and story. In Study 1 and Study 2, participants read a proposed bill that either included a victim’s name and narrative (eponymous condition) or not (control) and rated their approval of the bill, cognitive and affective responses, and reasoning. In both of these studies, participants were significantly more likely to support the eponymous bill than the control bill. Study 2 further suggested the effect was mediated by sympathy. In Study 3, we manipulated the victim’s name and narrative separately and found that narrative, not name, drove increased support. Narrative also increased sympathy in Study 3, but sympathy did not mediate the effect of narrative on bill support. Findings support legal commentators’ concerns about eponymous legislation. Legislators need to be cautious when proposing such bills to ensure that they are not ineffective or harmful despite receiving increased public approval. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved)