Abstract:
Observed delays in the Pakistani legal system are often attributed to systemic inefficiencies; however, this research paper is investigating that factors such as personality functioning, unmet psychological needs, and the influence of game framing—where stakeholders prioritize personal or strategic gains over justice— how affect these delays, impacting the overall efficacy of legal proceedings. This research paper proposes that Lawyers who have low personality functioning and their basic psychological needs are unmet are more likely to involve in game framing. To investigate this possibility, we surveyed 138 lawyers from Kacheri, Islamabad, using a convenience sampling, examining the degree to which personality functioning is associated with lawyers’ basic psychological needs and their tendency to frame negotiation in game‐like terms—a construal of negotiation that we label game framing. The study employed a cross-sectional research design, utilizing validated scale Negotiation Game Frame Scale, Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF-2) and Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale – Work Domain (BPNSFS-WD), to measure game framing, personality functioning, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs respectively. The findings reveal that personality functioning and basic psychological needs significantly impact game framing, with variations observed across demographic groups. These insights have practical implications for policymaking, help to develop targeted training programs and ethical guidelines for lawyers, and judicial reform, suggesting that interventions targeting psychological and personality factors (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy) can mitigate adverse outcomes linked to strategic framing in high-stakes environments.
