Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

Nudging interventions typically presume some asymmetry of sophistication and power between the choice architect and the nudged. But the nudged need not be relegated to a passive role. We present evidence that individuals have a capacity to counter their biases, and even to use them to their advantage. This capacity for behavioral self-management (“BSM”) can allow them to act as the choice architects of their future-self. In our study, we provide participants with the autonomy to choose among a variety of loss- and gain-framed contracts that govern the terms under which they perform a real effort task. The results show that subjects strategically harness their own loss aversion to counter their present bias and significantly improve their performance. The loss-framed contracts give individuals a tool they can use to self-nudge. This possibility of self-nudging should widen our perspective on biases. Biases can cause cognitive error and dampen motivation, but they can also be a valuable tool for individual decision making. And giving subjects the autonomy to choose their favored contract adds to the effectiveness of their BSM strategy. We show that subjects' experience self-determination utility separate from performance benefits driven by a better adjustment of work tasks to subjects' production functions. To demonstrate the policy relevance of our results, we expand on an application of BSM strategies to retirement savings plans, which we suggest may lift participation and savings rates at no additional cost.

Despite the importance and neutrality of constitutional rights, empirical research suggests that ideological inclinations unduly affect their assessment and application. In this study, we conducted two experiments in order to investigate the nature of the ideological bias in a constitutionally relevant decision (right-to-demonstration), and how to mitigate it. We find that ideological bias is driven by in-group favoritism. In addition, we find that prior commitment, through a signed declaration, to be impartial or to prioritize constitutional rights encourages participants not to disfavor out-groups. On the other hand, we do not find evidence that using a temporary blinding procedure mitigates the ideological bias.

The present study is the first large-scale empirical legal analysis of tax incentives for charitable giving in Switzerland, and one of the few studies globally. Using unique longitudinal data including household income and wealth of the entire taxpayers' population of the Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, we study patterns of charitable deductions and characteristics of donors making such deductions. Our study period extends over a decade (2001-2011), this period also encompassing a legal reform that raised ceilings for charitable deductions. We observe that an overwhelming majority of donors make deductions that never reach the legal ceiling, especially after the reform. Nonetheless, we identify a subset of donors that are potentially tax-incentive sensitive, because their deductions constantly reach (or exceed) this ceiling. Deductions made by those donors amount to 30%–54% of all such deductions in the canton of Geneva. If compared to all donors, the donors in this particular subset are older (in their mid-late 60s), mostly single, wealthier and more regular givers (deducters). Analyzing the deduction patterns in the entire donors' population, we observe that deducting charitable donations have become increasingly popular during the study period. In addition, we find that donors' relative generosity tends to decrease when their income and wealth increase. Those results have important tax policy implications and relevance in modeling tax incentives for charitable giving, in both Switzerland and elsewhere.

Previous research on prosecutorial decision-making has detailed prosecutors' considerable discretionary power along with their desire to avoid uncertain outcomes. However, few studies have applied this decision-making framework to criminal case outcomes. We addressed this gap by analyzing prosecutors' charging decisions and charge dispositions through the lens of a unique crime: sex trafficking. In the study, we examined whether the type of statute under which federal prosecutors may choose to charge defendants in sex trafficking-related cases is associated with the disposition of those charges. We used datasets from the Federal Justice Statistics Program for years 1994-2014 in multilevel logistic regession models that adjusted for factors relevant to prosecutorial decision-making. We then compared the dispositions of charges filed in sex trafficking-related cases and asked: Are charges filed under higher-penalty statutes significantly associated with dispositions that are more favorable to the prosecution? Or is the association present for lower-penalty statutes instead? Results from our first model, using a dataset with all available charges and dispositions for a 21-year period, show that when a charge is filed under a higher-penalty statute, the adjusted odds that its disposition is more favorable to the prosecution are about 60% higher than the odds for charges filed under lower-penalty statutes. Results from a subset of charge data linked to demographic characteristics show that the adjusted odds of obtaining a favorable charge disposition are 65% lower when the defendant is female. These associations suggest that higher-penalty statutes in sex trafficking-related cases, with their concomitant higher burdens of proof, do not necessarily implicate greater uncertainty in outcomes. Prosecutors have been using their discretion to charge under the more punitive statutes for many years and these cases have relatively high probabilities of favorable outcomes. This discretion may nevertheless be curbed by defendant characteristics beyond the prosecutor's control, including gender.