ABSTRACT
This chapter examines methodological limitations together with potential directions for future research related to meta-responsibility. The viability of the meta-responsibility theory in the light of the present research is discussed, as is the potential of the law and its fact-finders to consider meta-responsibility in insanity law. In order to be a viable birth, meta-responsibility must also be able to meet the requirements of effective law. Triangulation and extension of the research findings using forms of methodology other than the experiment embedded within a survey would be desirable. A larger qualitative component to the research would allow for better assessment of the degree to which the meta-responsibility insanity test produces verdicts consistent with subjects' reasons for their verdicts. Do acts of consensual or purposive meta-responsibility have an effect in mock juror decision making on litigation cases? Compensation practices might also become better informed through consideration of meta-responsibility.
