Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking

Ira Mark Ellman, Sanford L. Braver, Robert J. MacCoun

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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 et al., Q J Econ 118(1):73-105, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, & 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.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)96-108
    Number of pages13
    JournalLaw and Human Behavior
    Volume36
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Apr 2012

    Fingerprint

    gender-specific factors
    citizen
    Surveys and Questionnaires
    Arbitrariness
    literature
    Gender Differences
    Juries

    Keywords

    • child support
    • decision-making
    • family law
    • judgments
    • moral intuition

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Law
    • Psychiatry and Mental health
    • Psychology(all)
    • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

    Cite this

    Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking. / Ellman, Ira Mark; Braver, Sanford L.; MacCoun, Robert J.

    In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 36, No. 2, 04.2012, p. 96-108.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Ellman, IM, Braver, SL & MacCoun, RJ 2012, 'Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking', Law and Human Behavior, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093956
    Ellman, Ira Mark ; Braver, Sanford L. ; MacCoun, Robert J. / Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking. In: Law and Human Behavior. 2012 ; Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 96-108.
    @article{df4955a954b04df1ba601a64b80dbf90,
    title = "Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking",
    abstract = "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 et al., Q J Econ 118(1):73-105, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, & 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.",
    keywords = "child support, decision-making, family law, judgments, moral intuition",
    author = "Ellman, {Ira Mark} and Braver, {Sanford L.} and MacCoun, {Robert J.}",
    year = "2012",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1037/h0093956",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "96--108",
    journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
    issn = "0147-7307",
    publisher = "Springer New York",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking

    AU - Ellman, Ira Mark

    AU - Braver, Sanford L.

    AU - MacCoun, Robert J.

    PY - 2012/4

    Y1 - 2012/4

    N2 - 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 et al., Q J Econ 118(1):73-105, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, & 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.

    AB - 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 et al., Q J Econ 118(1):73-105, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, & 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.

    KW - child support

    KW - decision-making

    KW - family law

    KW - judgments

    KW - moral intuition

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865576456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865576456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1037/h0093956

    DO - 10.1037/h0093956

    M3 - Article

    VL - 36

    SP - 96

    EP - 108

    JO - Law and Human Behavior

    JF - Law and Human Behavior

    SN - 0147-7307

    IS - 2

    ER -