Abstract Principles and Concrete Cases in Intuitive Lawmaking
Ira Mark Ellman
Arizona State University College of Law
Sanford L. Braver
Arizona State University (ASU) - Department of Psychology
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law; University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program; University of California, Berkeley - The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy
February 5, 2011
Law and Human Behavior, Forthcoming
Citizens awaiting jury service were asked a series of items, in Likert format, to determine their endorsement of various statements about principles to use in setting child support amounts. These twenty items were derived from extant child support systems, from past literature and from Ellman and Ellman’s (2008) Theory of Child Support. The twenty items were found to coalesce into four factors (principles). There were pervasive gender differences in respondent’s endorsement of the principles. More importantly, three of these four principles were systematically reflected, in very rational (if complex) ways, in the respondents’ resolution of the individual child support cases they were asked to decide. Differences among respondents in their endorsement of these three principles accounted for differences in their patterns of child support judgments. It is suggested that the pattern of coherent arbitrariness (Ariely, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, and MacCoun 2009) is thus partially explained, in that the seeming arbitrariness of respondents’ initial support judgments reflect in part their differing views about the basic principles that should decide the cases.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 46
Keywords: child support, decisionmaking, judgmentsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 8, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.375 seconds