The Relationship of Alternative Negligence Rules to Litigation Behavior and Tort Claim Disposition

Recently most states have abandoned the traditional tort defense of contributory negligence and substituted a form of comparative negligence. Using an extensive data set of auto accident injury claims, we provide evidence on the relationship between negligence rules and claimants' litigation decisions to retain attorneys, file lawsuits and litigate versus settle out of court. Litigation choices appear to be rational responses to the varying incentives created by alternative tort standards. We find that in contrast to comparative negligence, claims arising under comparative negligence are associated with greater probabilities of attorney involvement, higher average award levels, and longer delays in securing payment. Only 37% of claims involving attorneys in contributory negligence states result in a lawsuit being filed compared to 49% and 47% under the pure and modified forms of comparative negligence, respectively. The study provides the first statistical evidence on the litigation costs of the new forms of comparative negligence.     

Feminism and mothering: A Kleinian perspective

There has been a tendency within recent feminist theory to celebrate the early mother-daughter relationship as a basis of women's unity as a sex. In this respect the work of the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein is relevant to feminism in that it draws attention to the hatred as well as love that inheres in the early mothering relation, and explains the prevalent neglect of the contradictory and ambivalent aspects of mothering—a neglect that contributes to its idealization.     

PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FAMILIES DISPUTING CUSTODY

This article reports data on allegations of domestic violence in two samples of high-conflict families in child custody disputes. It delineates five basic types of interparental violence and corresponding patterns in parent-child relationships. The findings should be viewed as preliminary exploratory hypotheses, which, if confirmed in future research, suggest that differential assessment of domestic families is important when helping divorcing parents make custody and visitation plans.     

Intergroup fairness biases: Is ours the fairer sex?

These studies were designed to assess ethnocentrism and stereotypes as possible mediators of intergroup fairness biases. In Study 1, subjects wrote fair and unfair behaviors about their own sex (the ingroup) and the opposite sex (the outgroup). More fair and fewer unfair behaviors were written about the ingroup than about the outgroup, supporting the ethnocentric hypothesis. In Study 2, subjects rated the fairness and frequency of random samples of each item type. Half the subjects rated these items as they were originally written, and half rated them with the gender of the actor reversed. Ethnocentrism was evident in ratings of ingroup actors as more fair than outgroup actors when both performed fair behaviors, but this bias was reversed in favor of outgroup actors for ratings of unfair behaviors. In addition, the items written about women were rated more fair than those written about men, and men rated the reversed gender items less fair and less frequent than did women, supporting the influence of gender stereotypes in intergroup fairness biases.