Arbitration Effect

Arbitration is changing the United States justice system. Critics argue that arbitration leads to claim suppression. Proponents argue that, compared with courts, arbitration is cheaper and less formal. These claims have not been empirically tested. In particular, whether and how arbitration impacts individuals’ decision to sue remains an open inquiry. This article for the first time shows, in a series of experiments, the impact of arbitration agreements on individuals' decisions to sue. This article calls it the “arbitration effect.” First, we test whether the arbitration effect exists; that is, if arbitration agreements negatively impact individuals' decision to sue. Second, we experimentally test individuals' decisions to opt out of arbitration agreements. Lastly, we assess whether any type of information can “cure” the arbitration effect. The results establish that individuals are less likely to sue in arbitration as opposed to court, hence the arbitration effect. Such an effect, however, does not exist at the contracting stage, meaning that individuals do not shun arbitration when given the option. Further, none of the fundamental attributes of arbitration, as touted by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor win-rates and class actions mitigate the arbitration effect. Equally, informational nudges do not reduce the effect, and individuals do not ascribe negative attributes to firms forcing mandatory arbitration. For decades, courts and lawmakers grappled with issues related to arbitration. The article provides much-needed data on arbitration. Findings cast serious doubts on the ongoing efforts—market-based, judicial, or regulatory—aiming to change the arbitration course.     

The Court's Role in Promoting Comprehensive Justice for Pregnant Drug and Alcohol Users

Drug use during pregnancy is an important social and medical issue. Legislatures and courts have offered a variety of responses, ranging from imprisonment to comprehensive service programs that are rehabilitative in nature. This article discusses the prevalence and effects of prenatal drug use, followed by a presentation of the scope of legal responses and treatment options. Some courts do not provide outreach services for drug‐offending mothers, while others may offer a limited range of services. In contrast, a comprehensive justice approach would provide a wide range of health, employment, and social programs for the offender. This approach is based on philosophies of restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and procedural justice. Such a theory‐based comprehensive justice program ultimately benefits mothers, children, and the community. Considerations are offered for judges who seek to implement a comprehensive justice approach to address this important problem.     

Treatment of human-caused trauma: attrition in the adult outcomes research

Attrition or dropout is the failure of a participant to complete, comply, or the prematurely discontinuation or discharge from treatment, resulting in lost data and affecting outcomes. This review of 10 years of adult posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment outcome literature specific to Criterion A events of human origin examines how attrition is defined and addressed, methodologically and statistically. Of the 13 experimental or quasi-experimental studies, 11 report attrition information. Compared to treatment completers, attriters more often had elevated pretest scores on PTSD and other symptom measures. The characteristics of dropouts given the intentional nature of the traumatic events reviewed in this study are shared to inform clinical practice. Recommendations for consistent methods in examining, analyzing, and interpreting treatment outcome data are also discussed.     

System-Justifying Functions of Complementary Regional and Ethnic Stereotypes: Cross-National Evidence

According to system justification theory, stereotyping is an ideological process that serves to justify the status quo and bolster the legitimacy of the existing social order. The present research investigates the system-justifying role of complementary stereotypes in which high-status groups are represented as agentic and achievement-oriented and low-status groups as communal and interpersonally oriented. We demonstrate that such complementary stereotypes: (a) reflect a high degree of consensus across high- and low-status perceiver groups; (b) are endorsed more strongly to the extent that system justification motives are chronically or temporarily activated; and (c) serve an ideological function by enhancing the perceived legitimacy of the existing social system. Evidence concerning regional and ethnic stereotypes in Italy, England, and Israel provides converging evidence for the system-justifying function of complementary stereotypes and reveals remarkable similarity in the contents of stereotypes of different groups that happen to occupy similar status positions in their respective societies.     

中国推行跨国资产证券化法律问题分析

由于在经济环境法律制度等方面的限制,资产证券化业务始终未能在中国境内蓬勃发展。于是有学者提出我国资产证券化的突破口———跨国资产证券化。本文分析了国内进行资产证券化的法律障碍,又分析了跨国资产证券化几个关键环节的法律问题,得出了我国推行跨国资产证券化在法律上可行的结论。