1 / 24

Intuitive Lawmaking: The Example of Child Support

Conference on Empirical Legal Studies New York University November 2007. Intuitive Lawmaking: The Example of Child Support. Ira Mark Ellman Sanford Braver Robert J. MacCoun. How Do People Think About Rules?. Child Support awards as case study. Some of Our Questions. What do people favor?

cara
Download Presentation

Intuitive Lawmaking: The Example of Child Support

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conference on Empirical Legal Studies New York University November 2007 Intuitive Lawmaking: The Example of Child Support Ira Mark Ellman Sanford Braver Robert J. MacCoun

  2. How Do People Think About Rules? • Child Support awards as case study

  3. Some of Our Questions • What do people favor? • Decision principles • Child-support amounts • Do their favored amounts follow logically from the principles they explicitly endorse? • Is there consensus? • Do characteristics like gender matter? • Are Lay intuitions on support amounts consistent with existing law?

  4. Method: Survey Instruments • Who We Ask • Members of jury pool in Tucson • Good community sample • 70% response rate to long forms • Today’s data from first 2 sessions • About 400 respondents • Continuing study • Nine weeks of further variations • Gender among them

  5. What We Ask • Likerts: 1 (strong disagree) to 7 (strong agree) • Support Amounts in Scenarios that assume • One child (9 year old boy) • Mom is CP, Dad is support obligor • Son “lives mostly with Mom, but Dad sees him often” • Dad earns $6000, $4000, or $2000 a month in “take-home pay”. Mom: $5,000, $3,000, or $1,000 • Every subject asked about all nine income combinations

  6. Likert Items 1 through 3

  7. Likert Items 4 through 6

  8. Likert Items 7 through 9

  9. Likert Items 10 through 12

  10. Likert Items 13 through 16

  11. Likert Items 17-20

  12. EFA explains 52% • 1 = GD+ • Mean rating = 4.99 • 2 = Dual Obligation • Mean rating = 4.82

  13. Factors 3 & 4 • 3: Capping Father’s Responsibility • Most disagree: mean rating 2.81 • 4: Earner’s Priority • Highest average agreement of all: 5.69

  14. Gender Effects in Factors 1 & 2

  15. Gender Effects in Factor 3

  16. Gender Effects in Factor 4

  17. Child Support Amounts • Each respondent is asked to make 9 judgments (3 x 3 income matrix) • We construct a regression model predicting subject i’s preferred support amount in case j: • Constant + coefficient * Mom’s income + coefficient * Dad’s income + coefficient *Mom’s income * Dad’s income + error term

  18. Average regression lines show • Respondents believe mom’s income matters • Lower CP income yields steeper slope Low income mom High Income mom

  19. “Coherent Arbitrariness” • Considerable dispersion in the Y-intercept • 95% confidence interval is 249 to 366 • Little dispersion in the slopes • CP income = -82 per 1000 • 95% confidence interval is -89 to -75 • NCP income = 185 per 1000 • 95% confidence interval of 177 to 193 • Ariely called this pattern “coherent arbitrariness” • Initial choice is arbitrary • Relative values are coherent.

  20. Connecting Principles with Cases • Can we predict preferred support amounts from Likert ratings of support principles? • Factor 1 (GD +) as example • Compare the average child support regression line of two groups • Agree more with Gross Disparity + (High Rating) • Agree Less with Gross Disparity + (Low Rating) • Method: Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)

  21. Details of the Groups • Agree with Gross Disparity Plus • Mean item rating: 6.32 • 1 SD above group mean • Disagree with Gross Disparity Plus: • Mean item rating: 3.59 • 1 SD below group mean • Group Mean = 4.99, SD = 1.33

  22. Gross Disparity+ as Predictor of Child Support Amounts Mother’s Income:▲= 5000 ■ = 3000 ● = 1000 Gross Disparity +: LowHigh Father’s Income

  23. What Prior Slide Tells Us • Within each Factor 1 group, basic pattern repeats • CS amounts go down as CP income rises, and go up as NCP income rises • If you rate GD+ high, then • You prefer more CS at any point • You increase support amounts more rapidly with increasing NCP income. • These differences in CS amounts follow logically from the GD+ ratings

  24. Some of Our Answers: • Within individuals • Beliefs, as measured by attitudes toward 20 principles, reflect a consistent pattern • Preferred support amounts in particular cases reflect these beliefs about principles • Between individuals • Men and women really are different • and it’s legal nurture as well as nature • Individual support schedules differ in their starting point but not much in their slope • People care more about child well-being than does existing law

More Related