Legal consciousness of the individual as a psychosemantic construct

Halyna Pogorilets, Nataliya Savelyuk
Abstract

The aim of the study was to theoretically substantiate the internal architecture and hierarchy of meanings that determine the logic of the perception of normative prescriptions and the choice of algorithms of human activity in the socio-regulatory space. The methodology was based on methods of conceptual-analytical elaboration, structural-logical modelling, case-study and applied analytical synthesis. It was established that within a psychosemantic perspective, legal consciousness is considered as a sphere of meaning-making in which legal phenomena acquire individual interpretations. The object of analysis shifts from formal awareness to the structure of subjective experience, in which “law” functions as a meaning category. Methodologically, it is essential to distinguish “meaning” as stable semantic content and “sense” as personalised evaluative-semantic modality. It was found that the psychosemantic framework unites the categorical organisation of meanings (semantic core), the evaluative-semantic modality and scenario forms of interaction into an integrated model. Legal consciousness appears as a structured semantic space in which the axes of interpretation provide the grounds for reconstructing individual meaning profiles. Contextual differences should be interpreted not as a “different level” of legal consciousness, but as variability of meaning configurations that determine the choice of strategies. Modality acts not as a “background” but as a structural mechanism of meaning-making, where key categories function as axial elements of the semantic core. Illustrative empirical plots (China, the United States of America, the Netherlands) confirm that the choice of scenarios of interaction with law depends on subjective trust and the meaningful evaluation of the situation. In Ukraine, the war brings the categories of justice and responsibility to the centre of the semantic core, stimulating scenarios of compensation and documentation of harm. It is appropriate to develop individual agency and algorithms of rights protection through the reconstruction of meaning oppositions and work with the evaluative-semantic modality of legal experience. The practical significance lies in the possibility of using the results by psychologists in psychological diagnostics and educational-preventive work to develop individual agency and to form effective strategies for the protection of rights

Keywords

sense; meaning; scenarios; interaction; modality; trust

Suggested citation
Pogorilets, H., & Savelyuk, N. (2026). Legal consciousness of the individual as a psychosemantic construct. Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, 14(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/1.2026.67
References
  1. Balaskas, S., & Yfantidou, I. (2026). Digital coercive control, institutional trust, and help-seeking among women experiencing violence: Evidence from Greece and the UK. Psychology International, 8(1), article number 3. doi: 10.3390/psycholint8010003.
  2. Barsalou, L.W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), article number 31. doi: 10.5334/joc.116.
  3. Chua, L.J. (2022). Constitutional interpretation and legal consciousness: Out of the courts and onto the ground. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(5), 1937-1957. doi: 10.1093/icon/moac110.
  4. Cowen, A.S., & Keltner, D. (2021). Semantic space theory: A computational approach to emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 124-136. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.004.
  5. Eickers, G. (2023). Scripts and social cognition. Ergo, 10(54), 1565-1587. doi: 10.3998/ergo.5191.
  6. Ergashev, I.A. (2025). Civil society and legal culture: Shaping legal consciousness through semantic signs. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 38, 2155-2180. doi: 10.1007/s11196-025-10316-6.
  7. Forti, B. (2025). What is consciousness and what it is for: An introduction to extended information theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, article number 1627289. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1627289.
  8. Halliday, S., Jones, A., Meers, J., & Tomlinson, J. (2024). Governmental influence over rights consciousness: Public perceptions of the COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Law and Society, 51(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1111/jols.12498.
  9. Hefner, M.K., Miller, S.L., & Fleury-Steiner, R.E. (2022). Legal consciousness and intimate partner violence survivors’ perceptions of protection order violations. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 1379-1390. doi: 10.1007/s10896-021-00336-8.
  10. Hertogh, M. (2024). Situating legal consciousness and legal compliance: How Dutch welfare clients think and act in relation to the law. Journal of Law and Society, 51(1), 118-135. doi: 10.1111/jols.12510.
  11. Honcharov, A.V., & Honcharov, M.V. (2025). Psychological components of the development of legal consciousness in future lawyers. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 1(5), 22-26. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2025.05.1.3.
  12. Hood, R.W., Streib, H., & Keller, B. (2022). Semantic differential. In S. Engler & M. Stausberg (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in the study of religion (pp. 578-590). London: Routledge.
  13. Horák, F., Lacko, D., & Klocek, A. (2021). Legal consciousness: A systematic review of its conceptualization and measurement methods. Yearbook of Legal Psychology, 31(1), 9-34. doi: 10.5093/apj2021a2.
  14. Hryniuk, R., & Hutsuliak, O. (2023). Legal consciousness as a subject of theoretical-legal, socio-philosophical, and psychological analysis. Legal Journals of the Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, 1(2), 4-17. doi: 10.31558/2786-5835.2023.1.2.1.
  15. Jakubiec, M. (2022). Legal concepts as mental representations. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 35(4), 1837-1855. doi: 10.1007/s11196-021-09853-7.
  16. Kolly-Shamne, A.V., Dribas, S.A., & Honcharov, A.V. (2023). Psychological features of legal consciousness among students of legal and historical training profiles. Scientific Notes of Taurida National V.I. Vernadsky University. Series: Psychology, 34(72(6)), 32-38. doi: 10.32782/2709-3093/2023.6/06.
  17. Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. (2025). Trust in social and political institutions: Public opinion in Ukraine (2012-2024) – merged data from public opinion polls conducted by KIIS from 2012 to 2024. doi: 10.48320/89D1F3E7-6E73-4975-AEFC-F10B26808A1B.
  18. Lewis, M., Cahill, A., Madnani, N., & Evans, J. (2023). Local similarity and global variability characterize the semantic space of human languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(51), article number e2300986120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2300986120.
  19. Liu, P., Tian, M., & Li, W. (2025). From information exposure to legal consciousness: The chain mediating role of political trust and social equality in Chinese college students. Acta Psychologica, 259, article number 105428. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105428.
  20. Martínez, E., Mollica, F., & Gibson, E. (2024). Even laypeople use legalese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(35), article number e2405564121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2405564121.
  21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025). Government at a glance 2025. doi: 10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.
  22. Pahore, M.R., Memon, S., & Shaikh, A.R. (2024). Modern movies and violence: Influence of movies on youth. Progressive Research Journal of Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 124-136.
  23. Perry, E., Elyassi, G.R., & Barzilay, A.R. (2025). Cultivating continued control: Post-separation abuse and entrapped legal consciousness. Laws, 14(5), article number 76. doi: 10.3390/laws14050076.
  24. Shuhui, X., Yu, Z., Chunjing, S., & Zhiqiang, W. (2025). From victim to bully: Unpacking moral disengagement and the buffering effect of legal cognition. BMC Public Health, 25, article number 4015. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-25364-7.
  25. Sinha, C. (2024). Making sense of law: Critical reflection on neuroscience, socialization, and self. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58, 247-270. doi: 10.1007/s12124-023-09762-3.
  26. Skąpska, G., Radomska, E., & Wróbel, M. (2023). The inconsistent, everyday legal consciousness of contemporary Poles. Polish Sociological Review, 223(3), 289-318. doi: 10.26412/psr223.01.
  27. Skorinko, J.L.M., Schweitzer, K., & Kehn, A. (2025). Editorial: Applying cognitive and social psychology to the legal system: What we know today and what is next. Frontiers in Cognition, 4, article number 1695413. doi: 10.3389/fcogn.2025.1695413.
  28. Vinck, P., Mysiv, L., Cave, A., Regan, M., McIntosh, S., & Pham, P.N. (2024). Ukraine justice and accountability survey 2024. Washington: Georgetown Law.
  29. Wang, H., & Dai, M. (2025). Who questions the legitimacy of law? A latent profile analysis using national data in China. Law and Human Behavior, 49(1), 108-120. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000583.
  30. World Justice Project. (2023). WJP justice data graphical report: Part 1. Retrieved from https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-JusticeDataGR-Part1-2023_compressed.pdf.
  31. Young, K.M., & Billings, K.R. (2020). Legal consciousness and cultural capital. Law & Society Review, 54(1), 33-65. doi: 10.1111/lasr.12455.
  32. Zhang, J., & Zhang, T. (2025). The influence of moral reasoning on adolescent decision-making and stress responses during VR social-moral conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, article number 1661490. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661490.