Where and When to Spank: A Comparison Between U.S. and Japanese College Students

Although physical punishment has been studied for decades, there are gaps in the literature regarding frequently used form, context, and cross cultural differences. A comparison was made using 227 college students in the United States and Japan, who were presented with four scenarios and surveyed regarding attitudes toward physical punishment, perceptions of appropriate discipline methods, and past experience with physical punishment. Japanese and U.S. respondents reported similar personal experience with physical punishment (Japanese 86%, U.S. 91%). However, U.S. respondents reported a higher likelihood of being hit with an object than did Japanese respondents. For U.S. respondents, the bottom and the hand were the top two sites on the body used for physical punishment, whereas the head and the face were the top two places for the Japanese sample. Unlike U.S. respondents, type of child misbehavior was found to have an impact on Japanese respondents’ views on the appropriate discipline method.     

Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.