The Prospective Impact of Family Functioning and Parenting Practices on Court-Involved Youth’s Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Court-involved youth exhibit high rates of psychiatric symptoms, substance use, and delinquency, yet little is known about the contributing roles of caregiver and...     

Trajectories of Perceived Parental Psychological Control across Adolescence and Implications for the Development of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Theory and research indicate considerable changes in parental control across adolescence (e.g., declining behavioral control), but the developmental course and...     

Correction to: The Public Power of Judgement: Reasonableness Versus Rationality—Setting the Ball Rolling

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - In the original publication of the article, the paragraph beginning “We begin with two...     

Corpus Linguistics as a Method of Legal Interpretation: Some Progress,Some Questions

Corpus linguistics is becoming a respected method of statutory and constitutional interpretation in the United States over the past decade, yet it has also generated a backlash from a group of scholars that engage in empirical work. This essay attempts to demonstrate both the contributions and the risks of using linguistic corpora as a primary tool in legal interpretation. Its legitimacy stems from the fact that courts routinely state that statutory terms, when not defined as a matter of law, are to be given their ordinary meaning. Judges have responded to this challenge, with the assistance of the linguistics community, by using corpora to determine which meanings are ordinary. However, legal analysts have not determined exactly what makes one meaning ordinary and another not ordinary. This gap has led to a level of disagreement in the field. Moreover, while linguists who engage in corpus linguistic analysis typically emphasize the importance of context, the legal application is peculiarly context-free, in keeping with legal philosophies that eschew reliance on reference to a law’s purpose and the intent of the legislature that enacted it. This move adds a political dimension to corpus analysis as a means of legal interpretation. Yet, the article concludes that by relying on a blend of general and specialized corpora, the legal system can substantially reduce the problem of contextualization, as some linguists and practitioners have already recognized.

     

The multi-level process of trust and learning in university–industry innovation collaborations

The Journal of Technology Transfer - Successful university–industry collaborations require high levels of trust among participants, yet achieving this goal is complex. In this study, we...     

Bicameralism and Minority-Party Influence on Legislative Development: Evidence from House Standing Committee Votes

The ability of the minority party to influence legislation in Congress is debated. Most bills are passed with large bipartisan majorities, yet the House, where most legislation is developed, is seen as a majority-party-dominated institution. I develop a theory of House minority-party influence at the committee markup stage as a result of the Senate’s institutional rules. An original data set of congressional committee votes shows that minority-party support in House committees predicts House and Senate passage. During unified party control of the chambers, an increase in Senate majority-party seats results in lower minority-party support for the legislation in the House committee, while during divided party control of Congress, the House majority passes more extreme bills as the chambers polarize. Even in the majority-party-dominated House, the minority’s preferences are incorporated into legislation, and the Senate’s institutional rules moderate bills to a significant degree.     

Students’ Personal Belief in a Just World,Well-Being,and Academic Cheating: A Cross-National Study

Social Justice Research - A cross-national study with university students from Germany (n?=?1135) and Turkey (n?=?634) tested whether personal belief in a just world (PBJW)...     

Reply to Mac Giolla and Ly (2019): On the reporting of Bayes factors in deception research

Bayes factors provide a continuous measure of evidence for one hypothesis (e.g., the null, H0) relative to another (e.g., the alternative, H1). Warmelink et al. (2019, Legal Criminol Psychol, 24, 258) reported Bayes factors alongside p‐values to draw inferences about whether the order of expected versus unexpected questions influenced the amount of details interviewees provided during an interview. Mac Giolla & Ly (2019) provided several recommendations to improve the reporting of Bayesian analyses and used Warmelink et al. (2019) as a concrete example. These included (I) not to over‐rely on cut‐offs when interpreting Bayes factors; (II) to rely less on Bayes factors, and switch to ‘nominal support’; and (III) to report the posterior distribution. This paper elaborates on their recommendations and provides two further suggestions for improvement. First, we recommend deception researchers report Robustness Regions to demonstrate the sensitivity of their conclusions to the model of H1 used. Second, we demonstrate a method that deception researchers can use to estimate, a priori, the sample size likely to be required to provide conclusive evidence.     

Parenting Coordination In Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence

Parenting Coordination is a “hybrid legal‐mental health role that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management, dispute resolution and, often times, decision‐making functions (AFCC, 2019, https://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/Guidelines%20for%20PC%20with%20Appendex.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-190220-990 ). This article addresses issues that arise when the case has allegations or findings of intimate partner violence (IPV). Considerations of the type of IPV, the severity, timing, perpetrator and effects on coparenting are discussed in the context of the parenting coordinator's role. Through screening and assessment, we differentiate the kinds of cases with the presence of IPV where a PC may be effective as opposed to other IPV cases that may not predict success for retaining a PC.