首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

英文 中文
Correction to “Chapter 13 Outcomes” 更正“第十三章结果”
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2026-01-18 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70022

Hynes, R. M., and N. Pattison. 2025. “Chapter 13 Outcomes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 22, no. 4: 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70003.

Some in-text statistics in Section 5.1 incorrectly refer to values from an earlier version of Table 3. The table itself is correct and unaffected.

Later in Section 5.1, we understated two comparisons because we inadvertently used the Debtor Discharge Rate (59.0%) instead of the Represented Debtor Discharge Rate (62.7%).

We apologize for these errors.

海因斯,r.m.和N.帕蒂森,2025。“第13章结果。”实证法学研究,第22期。4: 455 - 474。https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70003.Some章节5.1中的文本统计错误地引用了表3早期版本的值。表本身是正确的,不受影响。在后面的5.1节中,我们低估了两个比较,因为我们无意中使用了债务人清偿率(59.0%)而不是代表债务人清偿率(62.7%)。我们为这些错误道歉。
{"title":"Correction to “Chapter 13 Outcomes”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jels.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70022","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hynes, R. M., and N. Pattison. 2025. “Chapter 13 Outcomes.” <i>Journal of Empirical Legal Studies</i> 22, no. 4: 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70003.</p><p>Some in-text statistics in Section 5.1 incorrectly refer to values from an earlier version of Table 3. The table itself is correct and unaffected.</p><p>Later in Section 5.1, we understated two comparisons because we inadvertently used the Debtor Discharge Rate (59.0%) instead of the Represented Debtor Discharge Rate (62.7%).</p><p>We apologize for these errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Measuring Lawyer Mental Illness: Evidence From Two National Surveys 衡量律师精神疾病:来自两次全国调查的证据
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-12-12 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70018
Benjamin Pyle, Clifford Rosky

The American Bar Association has declared a “well-being crisis” among lawyers, but the empirical basis for this claim has been contested in recent years. This study systematically compares two high-quality, nationally representative surveys—the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)—to measure the prevalence of mental illness and alcohol misuse among lawyers. In both surveys, lawyers report elevated rates of alcohol misuse compared with the general public and similarly educated peers. The NHIS finds that lawyers experience psychological distress at rates lower than the general public and similar to, or moderately higher than, similarly educated peers. In the NSDUH, by contrast, more than 40% of lawyers report moderate or serious psychological distress in the past year. This rate is significantly higher than those reported by the general public, by similarly educated peers, and the rate found in the NHIS. While we cannot fully explain all of the differences between the two national surveys, we resolve some of these differences by studying sensitivity to instrument validation and calibration and closely aligning the measurements used in both surveys. To assess the remaining differences, we identify several advantages of the NSDUH, including the privacy of data-gathering methods, additional clinically validated mental illness measures, and results that are more consistent with other national surveys. The persistent divergences between the NHIS and NSDUH underscore the challenges of measuring mental illness and the importance of continued work on survey implementation, validation, analysis, and interpretation.

美国律师协会(American Bar Association)宣布律师中出现了“幸福危机”,但近年来,这一说法的实证基础一直受到争议。本研究系统地比较了两项高质量的、具有全国代表性的调查——国家健康访谈调查(NHIS)和国家药物使用和健康调查(NSDUH)——以衡量律师中精神疾病和酒精滥用的流行程度。在这两项调查中,与普通大众和受教育程度相似的同龄人相比,律师的酒精滥用率都有所上升。NHIS发现,律师经历心理困扰的比例低于普通大众,与同等教育背景的同行相似,或略高于他们。相比之下,在NSDUH,超过40%的律师在过去一年中报告有中度或严重的心理困扰。这一比例明显高于普通民众、受教育程度相似的同龄人所报告的比例,也高于全国健康调查的数据。虽然我们不能完全解释两次国家调查之间的所有差异,但我们通过研究对仪器验证和校准的敏感性以及密切调整两次调查中使用的测量值来解决其中的一些差异。为了评估其余的差异,我们确定了NSDUH的几个优势,包括数据收集方法的隐私性,额外的临床验证的精神疾病测量,以及与其他国家调查更一致的结果。NHIS和NSDUH之间持续存在的分歧强调了测量精神疾病的挑战,以及在调查实施、验证、分析和解释方面继续工作的重要性。
{"title":"Measuring Lawyer Mental Illness: Evidence From Two National Surveys","authors":"Benjamin Pyle,&nbsp;Clifford Rosky","doi":"10.1111/jels.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The American Bar Association has declared a “well-being crisis” among lawyers, but the empirical basis for this claim has been contested in recent years. This study systematically compares two high-quality, nationally representative surveys—the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)—to measure the prevalence of mental illness and alcohol misuse among lawyers. In both surveys, lawyers report elevated rates of alcohol misuse compared with the general public and similarly educated peers. The NHIS finds that lawyers experience psychological distress at rates lower than the general public and similar to, or moderately higher than, similarly educated peers. In the NSDUH, by contrast, more than 40% of lawyers report moderate or serious psychological distress in the past year. This rate is significantly higher than those reported by the general public, by similarly educated peers, and the rate found in the NHIS. While we cannot fully explain all of the differences between the two national surveys, we resolve some of these differences by studying sensitivity to instrument validation and calibration and closely aligning the measurements used in both surveys. To assess the remaining differences, we identify several advantages of the NSDUH, including the privacy of data-gathering methods, additional clinically validated mental illness measures, and results that are more consistent with other national surveys. The persistent divergences between the NHIS and NSDUH underscore the challenges of measuring mental illness and the importance of continued work on survey implementation, validation, analysis, and interpretation.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"60-101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Can Legal Knowledge Save Lives? A Randomized Experiment in Preventive Health Screenings 法律知识能拯救生命吗?预防性健康筛查的随机实验
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-12-09 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70021
Christopher Robertson, Wendy Netter Epstein

While the U.S. healthcare system typically imposes significant out-of-pocket costs on those with insurance, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires full coverage of certain preventive health services. Still, one in four eligible Americans remains unscreened for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer. We hypothesize that a lack of awareness about the ACA's requirement contributes to this gap. Additionally, we investigate whether prior experiences with medical debt deter individuals from seeking even free care, a potential spillover effect of broader healthcare cost burdens. We conducted an online survey experiment with 3354 insured U.S. adults aged 30–74 with moderate household incomes ($30 k–$99 k). We determined whether each one qualified for a free cancer screen based on age and sex, and found that n = 1406 had not received at least one recommended cancer screening. Those participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 factorial design. In the “free care disclosure” (FCD) treatment, half were informed that ACA-required screenings are fully covered without copays or deductibles. In the “medical debt salience” (MDS) treatment, half were asked about their medical debt history before assessing screening intentions. In addition to measures of intention, the primary outcome was behavioral—whether participants requested a link to take a step toward screening, a proxy for screening behavior, which was not observed directly. As hypothesized, FCD increased screening-related behavior by 5 percentage points (p = 0.031), with effects varying by cancer type. Consistently, 45% of respondents indicated that “costs or coverage” was a common reason for not having gotten screening, and large majorities agreed that “going to the doctor or hospital can be dangerous financially,” “the American healthcare system is full of tricks and traps,” and “in America, healthcare is never really free” (80%, 65%, and 91% agreeing, respectively). MDS had no direct effect on behavior, but contrary to the hypothesis, individuals with medical debt were more likely to seek screening than those without (p = 0.011). These findings suggest that a lack of awareness about the law providing free preventive care is a significant barrier to screening. Proactive communication by clinicians or public health officials could save lives.

虽然美国的医疗保健系统通常会对那些有保险的人征收大量的自付费用,但《平价医疗法案》(ACA)要求对某些预防性医疗服务进行全面覆盖。尽管如此,仍有四分之一的符合条件的美国人没有接受乳腺癌、结肠直肠癌和宫颈癌的筛查。我们假设缺乏对ACA要求的认识导致了这一差距。此外,我们还调查了以往的医疗债务经历是否会阻止个人寻求免费医疗,这是更广泛的医疗成本负担的潜在溢出效应。我们对3354名年龄在30 - 74岁、家庭收入适中(3万- 9万美元)的参保美国成年人进行了一项在线调查实验。我们根据年龄和性别确定每个人是否都有资格接受免费的癌症筛查,并发现n = 1406没有接受至少一项推荐的癌症筛查。在2 × 2因子设计中,这些参与者被随机分配到四种情况中的一种。在“免费医疗披露”(FCD)治疗中,一半的人被告知aca要求的筛查是完全覆盖的,没有共付额或免赔额。在“医疗债务突出”(MDS)治疗中,一半的人在评估筛查意图之前被问及他们的医疗债务历史。除了意图的测量之外,主要的结果是行为——参与者是否要求一个链接来采取筛选步骤,这是筛选行为的代理,这不是直接观察到的。正如假设的那样,FCD使筛查相关行为增加了5个百分点(p = 0.031),其效果因癌症类型而异。一直以来,45%的受访者表示,“成本或覆盖范围”是不接受筛查的常见原因,大多数人同意“去看医生或医院在经济上可能很危险”,“美国的医疗保健系统充满了诡计和陷阱”,以及“在美国,医疗保健从来都不是真正免费的”(分别为80%,65%和91%)。MDS对行为没有直接影响,但与假设相反,有医疗债务的个体比没有医疗债务的个体更有可能寻求筛查(p = 0.011)。这些发现表明,对提供免费预防保健的法律缺乏认识是筛查的一个重大障碍。临床医生或公共卫生官员的积极沟通可以挽救生命。
{"title":"Can Legal Knowledge Save Lives? A Randomized Experiment in Preventive Health Screenings","authors":"Christopher Robertson,&nbsp;Wendy Netter Epstein","doi":"10.1111/jels.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While the U.S. healthcare system typically imposes significant out-of-pocket costs on those with insurance, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires full coverage of certain preventive health services. Still, one in four eligible Americans remains unscreened for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer. We hypothesize that a lack of awareness about the ACA's requirement contributes to this gap. Additionally, we investigate whether prior experiences with medical debt deter individuals from seeking even free care, a potential spillover effect of broader healthcare cost burdens. We conducted an online survey experiment with 3354 insured U.S. adults aged 30–74 with moderate household incomes ($30 k–$99 k). We determined whether each one qualified for a free cancer screen based on age and sex, and found that <i>n</i> = 1406 had not received at least one recommended cancer screening. Those participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 factorial design. In the “free care disclosure” (FCD) treatment, half were informed that ACA-required screenings are fully covered without copays or deductibles. In the “medical debt salience” (MDS) treatment, half were asked about their medical debt history before assessing screening intentions. In addition to measures of intention, the primary outcome was behavioral—whether participants requested a link to take a step toward screening, a proxy for screening behavior, which was not observed directly. As hypothesized, FCD increased screening-related behavior by 5 percentage points (<i>p</i> = 0.031), with effects varying by cancer type. Consistently, 45% of respondents indicated that “costs or coverage” was a common reason for not having gotten screening, and large majorities agreed that “going to the doctor or hospital can be dangerous financially,” “the American healthcare system is full of tricks and traps,” and “in America, healthcare is never really free” (80%, 65%, and 91% agreeing, respectively). MDS had no direct effect on behavior, but contrary to the hypothesis, individuals with medical debt were more likely to seek screening than those without (<i>p</i> = 0.011). These findings suggest that a lack of awareness about the law providing free preventive care is a significant barrier to screening. Proactive communication by clinicians or public health officials could save lives.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"24-38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Pay Secrecy Bans and the Sharing of Salary Information Among US Workers 薪酬保密禁令和美国员工之间的薪酬信息共享
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-12-04 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70016
Kristen Underhill, Zohn Rosen, Lisa M. Bates, Francesca Manzi, Leib Litman

Many states bar employers from requiring or expecting employees to keep pay secret, and from retaliating against employees who discuss pay. In a nationally representative survey of 2369 US adults in 2021, people living in states with state laws barring pay secrecy reported more supportive attitudes regarding information-sharing and less concern about offending co-workers by asking about salary, but little to no difference in information-sharing behavior, beliefs or accuracy regarding the laws. Men were consistently more supportive of information-sharing than women, but the gender differential did not differ between groups of states. We randomized participants in each set of states to learn the law of their jurisdiction. In states with pay secrecy bans, participants who learned about the law reported significantly greater comfort asking others and intentions to ask others about compensation, compared to those who were not given information about the law.

许多州禁止雇主要求或期望员工对薪酬保密,也禁止雇主对讨论薪酬的员工进行报复。在2021年对2369名美国成年人进行的一项具有全国代表性的调查中,居住在州法律禁止薪酬保密的州的人们对信息共享持更支持的态度,更不担心因询问薪水而冒犯同事,但在信息共享行为、信念或对法律的准确性方面几乎没有差异。男性一贯比女性更支持信息共享,但性别差异在各州之间没有差异。我们将参与者随机分配到每组州,让他们学习各自管辖的法律。在禁止薪酬保密的州,了解法律的参与者报告说,与那些没有了解法律信息的人相比,他们更愿意询问他人,也更愿意询问他人有关薪酬的问题。
{"title":"Pay Secrecy Bans and the Sharing of Salary Information Among US Workers","authors":"Kristen Underhill,&nbsp;Zohn Rosen,&nbsp;Lisa M. Bates,&nbsp;Francesca Manzi,&nbsp;Leib Litman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Many states bar employers from requiring or expecting employees to keep pay secret, and from retaliating against employees who discuss pay. In a nationally representative survey of 2369 US adults in 2021, people living in states with state laws barring pay secrecy reported more supportive attitudes regarding information-sharing and less concern about offending co-workers by asking about salary, but little to no difference in information-sharing behavior, beliefs or accuracy regarding the laws. Men were consistently more supportive of information-sharing than women, but the gender differential did not differ between groups of states. We randomized participants in each set of states to learn the law of their jurisdiction. In states with pay secrecy bans, participants who learned about the law reported significantly greater comfort asking others and intentions to ask others about compensation, compared to those who were not given information about the law.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"128-152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Judicial Perceptions of Legal Difficulty: An Empirical Inquiry 法律困难的司法认知:一项实证调查
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-11-26 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70017
Brian Sheppard, Michael Coenen, Andrew Moshirnia

The law often asks judges to determine whether a violation is clearly established or whether legal language clearly or unambiguously supports a position. It demands that litigants not raise arguments or claims that would be easily dismissed. And for their part legal scholars have relied on the distinction between easy and hard cases as they delineate the concept of law itself. Yet, few have empirically studied assessments of legal difficulty. Here, we present the results of two studies that provide insight into the reliability of such assessments from laypeople and actual judges. For both populations, our key finding was this: assessments of case difficulty are highly predictive of the vote breakdown in a case; that is, the larger the size of a majority coalition, the lower the average difficulty rating registered by the members of that coalition (and, conversely, the smaller the size of a minority coalition, the higher the rating registered by its members). These results suggest that, while assessments of case difficulty are tied to case outcomes, they are a complex signal. Experiencing the feeling that a case is unusually difficult is not necessarily an indication that you are dealing with a 50/50 case, as is commonly assumed. Instead, it may be an indication that your position on the merits would be decisively rejected by the vast majority of others confronting the same question.

法律经常要求法官确定一项违法行为是否明确成立,或者法律语言是否明确或明确地支持一种立场。它要求诉讼当事人不要提出容易被驳回的论据或主张。而对于法律学者来说,他们在描述法律本身的概念时依赖于简单案件和困难案件之间的区别。然而,很少有人对法律困难的评估进行实证研究。在这里,我们提出了两项研究的结果,这些研究为外行人和实际法官的这种评估的可靠性提供了见解。对于这两个群体,我们的主要发现是:对案件难度的评估高度预测了案件中的投票崩溃;也就是说,多数联盟的规模越大,该联盟成员的平均难度评级就越低(相反,少数联盟的规模越小,其成员的评级就越高)。这些结果表明,虽然对案件难度的评估与案件结果有关,但它们是一个复杂的信号。体验到一个案件异常困难的感觉并不一定表明你正在处理一个50/50的案件,就像通常认为的那样。相反,它可能表明,面对同样的问题,你对是非曲直的立场将被绝大多数人断然拒绝。
{"title":"Judicial Perceptions of Legal Difficulty: An Empirical Inquiry","authors":"Brian Sheppard,&nbsp;Michael Coenen,&nbsp;Andrew Moshirnia","doi":"10.1111/jels.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The law often asks judges to determine whether a violation is clearly established or whether legal language clearly or unambiguously supports a position. It demands that litigants not raise arguments or claims that would be easily dismissed. And for their part legal scholars have relied on the distinction between easy and hard cases as they delineate the concept of law itself. Yet, few have empirically studied assessments of legal difficulty. Here, we present the results of two studies that provide insight into the reliability of such assessments from laypeople and actual judges. For both populations, our key finding was this: assessments of case difficulty are highly predictive of the vote breakdown in a case; that is, the larger the size of a majority coalition, the lower the average difficulty rating registered by the members of that coalition (and, conversely, the smaller the size of a minority coalition, the higher the rating registered by its members). These results suggest that, while assessments of case difficulty are tied to case outcomes, they are a complex signal. Experiencing the feeling that a case is unusually difficult is not necessarily an indication that you are dealing with a 50/50 case, as is commonly assumed. Instead, it may be an indication that your position on the merits would be decisively rejected by the vast majority of others confronting the same question.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"102-127"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Bridging the Human–AI Fairness Gap: How Providing Reasons Enhances the Perceived Fairness of Public Decision-Making 弥合人类与人工智能的公平差距:如何提供理由提高公共决策的感知公平性
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-11-22 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70019
Arian Henning, Pascal Langenbach

Automated legal decision-making is often perceived as less fair than its human counterpart. This human–AI fairness gap poses practical challenges for implementing automated systems in the public sector. Drawing on experimental data from 4250 participants in three public decision-making scenarios, this study examines how different reasoning models influence the perceived fairness of automated and human decision-making. The results show that providing reasons enhances the perceived fairness of decision-making, regardless of whether decisions are made by humans or machines. Moreover, sufficiently individualized reasoning models have a stronger positive impact on the perceived fairness of automated decisions than on the perceived fairness of human decisions. This largely mitigates the human–AI fairness gap. The results thus suggest that well-designed reasons can improve the acceptability of automated governance.

自动化的法律决策往往被认为不如人工决策公平。这种人类与人工智能的公平性差距给在公共部门实施自动化系统带来了实际挑战。利用三种公共决策场景中4250名参与者的实验数据,本研究考察了不同的推理模型如何影响自动决策和人类决策的感知公平性。结果表明,无论决策是由人类还是机器做出的,提供原因都能增强决策的公平感。此外,充分个性化的推理模型对自动决策的感知公平性比对人类决策的感知公平性有更强的积极影响。这在很大程度上缓解了人类与人工智能之间的公平差距。因此,结果表明,设计良好的原因可以提高自动化治理的可接受性。
{"title":"Bridging the Human–AI Fairness Gap: How Providing Reasons Enhances the Perceived Fairness of Public Decision-Making","authors":"Arian Henning,&nbsp;Pascal Langenbach","doi":"10.1111/jels.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Automated legal decision-making is often perceived as less fair than its human counterpart. This human–AI fairness gap poses practical challenges for implementing automated systems in the public sector. Drawing on experimental data from 4250 participants in three public decision-making scenarios, this study examines how different reasoning models influence the perceived fairness of automated and human decision-making. The results show that providing reasons enhances the perceived fairness of decision-making, regardless of whether decisions are made by humans or machines. Moreover, sufficiently individualized reasoning models have a stronger positive impact on the perceived fairness of automated decisions than on the perceived fairness of human decisions. This largely mitigates the human–AI fairness gap. The results thus suggest that well-designed reasons can improve the acceptability of automated governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"39-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The ESG Backlash and the Demand for ESG Mutual Funds ESG反弹和ESG共同基金需求
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-10-02 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70010
Quinn Curtis

The backlash to ESG investing is in full swing, with dozens of states enacting measures aimed at curtailing the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors in their pension funds. Meanwhile, ESG mutual funds are experiencing net outflows after a period of lagging performance. Is this the end for ESG funds? This paper draws on the literature on mutual fund flows to study how the demand for ESG funds has changed over time and how that demand interacts with the political and legal backlash to ESG. It finds that ESG funds received significant positive flows, controlling for conventional predictors of fund flow, starting in 2017. This effect peaked in late 2019, much earlier than the publicly perceived decline of ESG. Abnormal investor preference for ESG funds disappeared in 2020, around the time of the Trump Department of Labor rule targeting ESG and then reappeared in 2021 before declining again. The excess demand for ESG was driven largely by institutional share classes, particularly pre-2021. While the positive effect of ESG branding on flows has disappeared, demand for ESG funds (controlling for past performance) has generally remained non-negative up to 2024. Most of the decline in excess demand for ESG funds predates the political backlash and state anti-ESG laws. Tests for a causal relationship between ESG fund flows and the political backlash, as measured by mentions of ESG in conservative media and state laws restricting ESG, show no statistical connection.

对ESG投资的抵制正如火如荼地进行,数十个州颁布了旨在减少其养老基金对环境、社会和治理因素考虑的措施。与此同时,ESG共同基金在经历了一段时间的滞后表现后,正经历净流出。这是ESG基金的末日吗?本文利用有关共同基金流动的文献,研究对ESG基金的需求如何随着时间的推移而变化,以及这种需求如何与对ESG的政治和法律反弹相互作用。研究发现,从2017年开始,ESG基金获得了显著的正流动,控制了传统的资金流动预测指标。这种影响在2019年底达到顶峰,比公众认为的ESG衰落要早得多。投资者对ESG基金的异常偏好在2020年特朗普劳工部出台针对ESG的规定前后消失,然后在2021年再次出现,然后再次下降。对ESG的过度需求主要是由机构股票类别推动的,尤其是在2021年之前。虽然ESG品牌对资金流动的积极影响已经消失,但到2024年,对ESG基金的需求(控制过去的业绩)总体上保持非负。ESG基金过剩需求的下降,大多发生在政治反弹和各州出台反ESG法律之前。对ESG资金流动与政治反弹之间因果关系的测试(通过保守媒体对ESG的提及和限制ESG的州法律来衡量)显示,没有统计上的联系。
{"title":"The ESG Backlash and the Demand for ESG Mutual Funds","authors":"Quinn Curtis","doi":"10.1111/jels.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The backlash to ESG investing is in full swing, with dozens of states enacting measures aimed at curtailing the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors in their pension funds. Meanwhile, ESG mutual funds are experiencing net outflows after a period of lagging performance. Is this the end for ESG funds? This paper draws on the literature on mutual fund flows to study how the demand for ESG funds has changed over time and how that demand interacts with the political and legal backlash to ESG. It finds that ESG funds received significant positive flows, controlling for conventional predictors of fund flow, starting in 2017. This effect peaked in late 2019, much earlier than the publicly perceived decline of ESG. Abnormal investor preference for ESG funds disappeared in 2020, around the time of the Trump Department of Labor rule targeting ESG and then reappeared in 2021 before declining again. The excess demand for ESG was driven largely by institutional share classes, particularly pre-2021. While the positive effect of ESG branding on flows has disappeared, demand for ESG funds (controlling for past performance) has generally remained non-negative up to 2024. Most of the decline in excess demand for ESG funds predates the political backlash and state anti-ESG laws. Tests for a causal relationship between ESG fund flows and the political backlash, as measured by mentions of ESG in conservative media and state laws restricting ESG, show no statistical connection.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"690-706"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Network Analysis of Innovation in Legal Scholarship: Law & Economics, Law & Society, and Empirical Legal Studies 法学学术创新的网络分析:法学与经济学、法学与社会、实证法学研究
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-28 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70012
Jing Liu, David A. Hyman

Innovation in legal scholarship is a constant, but some innovations are more successful than others. We use descriptive and inferential network analysis to study the dissemination and adoption of empirical studies from three sub-fields—law and economics (L&E), law and society (L&S), and empirical legal studies (ELS)—to one another and to the traditional academic legal community. We find that L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship mostly do not overlap with one another in terms of the topics that are addressed (research frontiers) and the authorities that are cited (knowledge base). Even when topic choice overlaps, L&E scholarship and L&S scholarship cite different authorities, reflecting different fundamental principles and assumptions. In contrast, ELS covers topics that are specific to either JLE or LSR and co-cites landmark works from both sub-fields. By encompassing a diverse array of topics and methodologies, ELS effectively bridges and extends the boundaries of both L&E and L&S, which might have helped facilitate its dissemination to the traditional legal academic community. Our Exponential Random Graph Models further confirm these findings and suggest that ELS simultaneously draws from but also has something useful to offer to scholarship in other areas of the law. In an academic world where fields are dominated by hedgehogs (who know one big thing), ELS scholars are quintessential foxes (who know many things).

法律学术的创新是持续不断的,但有些创新比其他创新更成功。我们使用描述和推理网络分析来研究实证研究在三个子领域——法律与经济学(L&;E)、法律与社会(L&;S)和实证法律研究(ELS)——彼此之间以及在传统学术法律界的传播和采用。我们发现,L&;E奖学金和L&;S奖学金在涉及的主题(研究前沿)和引用的权威(知识库)方面大多不重叠。即使选题重叠,L&;E奖学金和L&;S奖学金引用不同的权威,反映不同的基本原则和假设。相比之下,ELS涵盖了特定于JLE或LSR的主题,并共同引用了这两个子领域的标志性作品。通过涵盖一系列不同的主题和方法,ELS有效地连接和扩展了法学和法学的边界,这可能有助于促进其在传统法律学术界的传播。我们的指数随机图模型进一步证实了这些发现,并表明ELS同时借鉴了法律其他领域的学术研究,但也有一些有用的东西可以提供。在一个学术领域被刺猬(只知道一件大事)统治的世界里,ELS的学者是典型的狐狸(知道很多事情)。
{"title":"Network Analysis of Innovation in Legal Scholarship: Law & Economics, Law & Society, and Empirical Legal Studies","authors":"Jing Liu,&nbsp;David A. Hyman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Innovation in legal scholarship is a constant, but some innovations are more successful than others. We use descriptive and inferential network analysis to study the dissemination and adoption of empirical studies from three sub-fields—law and economics (L&amp;E), law and society (L&amp;S), and empirical legal studies (ELS)—to one another and to the traditional academic legal community. We find that L&amp;E scholarship and L&amp;S scholarship mostly do not overlap with one another in terms of the topics that are addressed (research frontiers) and the authorities that are cited (knowledge base). Even when topic choice overlaps, L&amp;E scholarship and L&amp;S scholarship cite different authorities, reflecting different fundamental principles and assumptions. In contrast, ELS covers topics that are specific to either JLE or LSR and co-cites landmark works from both sub-fields. By encompassing a diverse array of topics and methodologies, ELS effectively bridges and extends the boundaries of both L&amp;E and L&amp;S, which might have helped facilitate its dissemination to the traditional legal academic community. Our Exponential Random Graph Models further confirm these findings and suggest that ELS simultaneously draws from but also has something useful to offer to scholarship in other areas of the law. In an academic world where fields are dominated by hedgehogs (who know one big thing), ELS scholars are quintessential foxes (who know many things).</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"599-619"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145450083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Gun Laws and Justifiable Homicides: Contrasting Impacts on Civilians and Police 枪支法和正当杀人:对平民和警察的对比影响
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70014
Ivan Ribeiro, Julio Trecenti, Nelson Coelho, Jessica Maruyama, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue

We examine the association between right-to-carry (RTC) and stand-your-ground (SYG) laws and justifiable homicides by civilians and police, and discuss public policy implications. In baseline fixed-effects models without interactions, RTC is associated with a 47% increase in civilian justifiable homicides. When an RTC � � � � � � × SYG interaction is included, SYG alone is associated with a 51.2% decrease (when RTC = 0), and the RTC main effect is a non-significant but sizable 29.7% increase (when SYG = 0). Their combination is associated with a 36.9% increase relative to states with neither policy, and the marginal effect of adopting RTC in SYG states is large, about 180%. By contrast, police justifiable homicides show no such interaction and are generally unaffected, with a limited exception in baseline large-city models (without interaction terms) where RTC is associated with a decrease. We conduct robustness checks using large-city samples, alternative data (Fatal Encounters), and a placebo–permutation test. Event-study estimates show no significant pre-trends for either law, only a positive estimate two years after RTC adoption at the state level for civilian homicides. Permutation-based inference does not consistently reach conventional significance thresholds. Overall, the results underscore the importance of analyzing police and civilian cases separately, accounting for policy interactions, and exercising caution regarding causal interpretations given data limitations and potential estimator bias.

我们研究了持枪权(RTC)和坚守阵地法(SYG)与平民和警察的正当杀人之间的关系,并讨论了公共政策的影响。在没有相互作用的基线固定效应模型中,RTC与平民正当杀人增加47%有关。当RTC × SYG相互作用包括在内时,SYG单独与51.2%的降低相关(当RTC = 0时),RTC主效应是不显著但相当大的29.7%的增加(当SYG = 0时)。与没有任何政策的州相比,这两项政策的结合增加了36.9%,而在SYG州采用RTC的边际效应很大,约为180%。相比之下,警察正当杀人没有表现出这种相互作用,通常不受影响,只有在基线大城市模型(没有相互作用项)中有一个有限的例外,其中RTC与减少有关。我们使用大城市样本、替代数据(致命遭遇)和安慰剂排列检验进行稳健性检查。事件研究估计表明,这两项法律都没有明显的前期趋势,只有在州一级采用RTC后两年才有一个积极的估计。基于排列的推理并不总是达到传统的显著性阈值。总体而言,结果强调了分别分析警察和民事案件的重要性,考虑到政策相互作用,并在考虑数据限制和潜在估计偏差的情况下对因果解释保持谨慎。
{"title":"Gun Laws and Justifiable Homicides: Contrasting Impacts on Civilians and Police","authors":"Ivan Ribeiro,&nbsp;Julio Trecenti,&nbsp;Nelson Coelho,&nbsp;Jessica Maruyama,&nbsp;Abhay Aneja,&nbsp;John Donohue","doi":"10.1111/jels.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We examine the association between right-to-carry (RTC) and stand-your-ground (SYG) laws and justifiable homicides by civilians and police, and discuss public policy implications. In baseline fixed-effects models without interactions, RTC is associated with a 47% increase in civilian justifiable homicides. When an RTC <span></span><math>\u0000 \u0000 <semantics>\u0000 \u0000 <mrow>\u0000 \u0000 <mo>×</mo>\u0000 </mrow>\u0000 </semantics>\u0000 </math> SYG interaction is included, SYG alone is associated with a 51.2% decrease (when RTC = 0), and the RTC main effect is a non-significant but sizable 29.7% increase (when SYG = 0). Their combination is associated with a 36.9% increase relative to states with neither policy, and the marginal effect of adopting RTC in SYG states is large, about 180%. By contrast, police justifiable homicides show no such interaction and are generally unaffected, with a limited exception in baseline large-city models (without interaction terms) where RTC is associated with a decrease. We conduct robustness checks using large-city samples, alternative data (Fatal Encounters), and a placebo–permutation test. Event-study estimates show no significant pre-trends for either law, only a positive estimate two years after RTC adoption at the state level for civilian homicides. Permutation-based inference does not consistently reach conventional significance thresholds. Overall, the results underscore the importance of analyzing police and civilian cases separately, accounting for policy interactions, and exercising caution regarding causal interpretations given data limitations and potential estimator bias.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":"707-733"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Foreword JELS 22.4 (December 2025) JELS 22.4(2025年12月)
IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI: 10.1111/jels.70015
Tonja Jacobi, Jonathan Remy Nash, Joanna Shepherd
{"title":"Foreword JELS 22.4 (December 2025)","authors":"Tonja Jacobi,&nbsp;Jonathan Remy Nash,&nbsp;Joanna Shepherd","doi":"10.1111/jels.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145449898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1