Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between moral disengagement, individual differences (i.e. need for cognition (NFC), faith in intuition, legal authoritarianism) and responses to vigilantism. Design/methodology/approach – US university students were surveyed. Findings – NFC reduced support for vigilante justice while legal authoritarianism increased support for vigilante justice. Both relationships are mediated by moral disengagement, which also increases support for vigilante justice. Research limitations/implications – The present study provides a starting point for further research on individual differences and responses to vigilantism. Practical implications – Results expand on the understanding of the function of individual differences in a morally charged decision-making task. Content has implications for academics and legal practitioners. Originality/value – Vigilante justice is embedded within American culture. However, vigilantism is currently illegal, and recent instances of what might be considered vigilante justice (e.g. George Zimmerman, David Barajas) have highlighted the controversy surrounding such extralegal violence. Little research has focussed on the moral quandary posed by vigilantism.

Two cognitive biases might partially account for public support of the ineffective AMBER Alert system. Hindsight bias is a cognitive error in which people with outcome knowledge overestimate the likelihood that this particular outcome would occur; outcome bias is an error made in evaluating the quality of a decision once the outcome is known. Two experiments assessed whether hindsight and outcome bias occur in child abduction scenarios. Study 1 was a pre/posttest experiment that examined whether hindsight bias occurs in situations in which the identity of the abductor (stranger or parent) is manipulated between groups, and all participants are told the child was killed. Study 2, a between‐subjects experiment, examined whether hindsight and outcome biases occur in situations in which no AMBER Alert was issued (because the situation did not meet the legal requirements to issue an Alert), and manipulated the identity of the abductor and the outcome (child safely returned, killed, or not outcome provided). Hindsight and outcome biases occurred in both studies, given the correct set of circumstances. Abductor identity also impacted outcome estimates. Results from the two studies indicate that hindsight and outcome bias occur, but this is dependent on the outcome (child killed, child returned safely, no outcome provided) and the identity of the abductor (stranger, dangerous parent, non‐dangerous parent). Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Postpartum depression defense (PPDD) is a form of insanity defense often used when mothers harm their children. Although courts have determined that insanity defenses, including PPDD, can be used as legitimate criminal defenses, such defenses are often misunderstood among jurors and laypersons. The current survey of 467 undergraduates examines relationships between individual differences and support for PPDD and the insanity defense. Need for cognition was found to be positively related to support for PPDD and the insanity defense, while legal authoritarianism (LA) was found to be negatively related to support for both defenses. Faith in intuition is negatively related to support for the insanity defense. In this sample, women are more likely than men to support the PPDD, but not the insanity defense. Additionally, relationships between support and both the need for cognition and LA are partially mediated by moral disengagement, which is negatively related to support for PPDD and insanity defenses. These results replicate a model used in different legal contexts. Implications for legal and academic communities are discussed.