CSN: Law (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Precise Punishment: Why Precise Punitive Damage Requests Result in Higher Awards than Round Requests","authors":"Michael Conklin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3688471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3688471","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine a setting where someone asks two people what the temperature is outside. The first person says it is 80 °F, while the second person says it is 78.7 °F. Research regarding precise versus round cognitive anchoring suggests that the second person is more likely to be believed. This is because it is human nature to assume that if someone gives a precise answer, he must have good reason for doing so. This principle remains constant in a variety of settings, including used car negotiations, eBay transactions, and estimating the field goal percentage of a basketball player.\u0000\u0000This Article reports the results of a first-of-its-kind study involving over 600 participants designed to measure if this same principle applies to punitive damage requests from plaintiffs’ attorneys. In other words, can a plaintiff’s attorney increase the punitive damages awarded simply by requesting $497,000 instead of $500,000. The stark differences produced from such a subtle and costless change provide a valuable strategy for plaintiffs’ attorneys, a cautionary warning for civil defense attorneys, and constructive insight into the subjective nature of juror decision-making.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"05 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127193591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Heuristics and Public Policy: Decision Making Under Bounded Rationality","authors":"S. Dhami, Ali al-Nowaihi, C. Sunstein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3198739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3198739","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractHow do human beings make decisions when, as the evidence indicates, the assumptions of the Bayesian rationality approach in economics do not hold? Do human beings optimize, or can they? Sev...","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134377587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fair Play in Indian Health Insurance","authors":"S. Malhotra, I. Patnaik, Shubho R. Roy, Ajay Shah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3179354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3179354","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years there has been an increased role for health insurance in Indian health care, through government funded health insurance programs and privately purchased health insurance. Our analysis of the claims ratio and the complaints rate in the health insurance industry, suggests that there are important difficulties with the working of health insurance. The lack of fair play in this industry is derived from deficiencies in regulations, weak enforcement of regulations and faulty institutional design of consumer redress. The solutions lie in laws and regulatory processes for consumer protection. Examination of health policy and financial policy,together would formulate a strategy for change.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130804563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fraud Theories: Explanation of Financial Statement Fraud","authors":"Ashraf Elsayed","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3078962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3078962","url":null,"abstract":"The knowledge of fraud symptoms and causes is an important factor in preventing and detecting fraud. The fraud occurred in three different ways: lack of awareness of acting fraudulently (by error), awareness coupled with rationalization to avoid negative affect or emotion (individual’s intuition support committing fraud), or awareness coupled with reasoning through cost-benefit analysis (individual’s intuition unclear) (Murphy & Dacin, 2011). Previous studies had attributed the financial statements fraud (management fraud) to different reasons. Williams (2012) suggested that the management fraud is motivated by proposed unrealistic goals supported by attractive compensations. The manager works diligently to meets established goals, such maximizing the wealth of shareholders, which may cause them to manipulate the accounting records. Teed (2013) proposed that managers are emboldened to commit a fraud and financial misbehavior due to the lack of controls by the SEC and others and the inability to deter and detect fraud. Frankel (2012) attributed the management fraud to CEO's unethical financial decisions and the complexity of information technology. The financial fraud is also warranted by a desire to achieve goals and objectives, unhealthy competition, fear of losing one's job/bonuses, criminal collaboration, and challenges in meeting financial targets (Omar & Rizuan, 2014). \u0000Fraud is a worldwide, multifaceted phenomenon, whose contextual factors may not fit into a particular framework (Lokanan, 2015). The management fraud, like human behavior, is an intentional, complex, multidimensional act that results from multiple interactive factors (Hutchison, 2013). It can be viewed from eight different theoretical perspectives: systems, conflict, rational choice, social constructivist, social behavioral, psychodynamic, and developmental perspective (Hutchison, 2013). The system perspective views human behavior as mutual interactions among individuals within a linked system, whereas conflict perspective claims that individuals advance their own interests over others exploiting their powers (Hutchison, 2013). The rational choice perspective proposes that individuals behave in a self-interests manner to accomplish goals by maximizing benefits and minimizing costs through social resources trade-off, whereas social constructivist perspective suggests that social interactions shape individual learning (Hutchison, 2013). The social behavioral suggests that environments interactions shape individual behavior, whereas psychodynamic perspective claims that human behavior is motivated by internal innate/forces such as needs, emotion, and mental activity, and developmental perspective claim that human behavior develops in age- graded stages through interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134188609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inside the Arbitrator's Mind","authors":"Susan D. Franck, Anne van Aaken, J. Freda, C. Guthrie, J. Rachlinski","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/ea5pm","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/ea5pm","url":null,"abstract":"Arbitrators are lead actors in global dispute resolution. They are to global dispute resolution what judges are to domestic dispute resolution. Despite its global significance, arbitral decision making is a black box. This Article is the first to use original experimental research to explore how international arbitrators decide cases. We find that arbitrators often make intuitive and impressionistic decisions, rather than fully deliberative decisions. We also find evidence that casts doubt on the conventional wisdom that arbitrators render “split the baby” decisions. Although direct comparisons are difficult, we find that arbitrators generally perform at least as well as, but never demonstrably worse than, national judges analyzed in earlier research. There may be reasons to prefer judges to international arbitrators, but the quality of judgment and decision making, at least as measured in these experimental studies, is not one of them. Thus, normative debates about global dispute resolution should focus on using structural safeguards and legal protections to enhance quality decision-making, regardless of decision maker identity or title.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132649618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Explains Observed Reluctance to Trade? A Comprehensive Literature Review","authors":"K. Zeiler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2862021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2862021","url":null,"abstract":"Valuation gaps and exchange asymmetries are among the most widely studied phenomena in the field of behavioral economics. The purpose of this chapter is to present the current state of the social science literature related to observed reluctance to trade. Numerous theories have been proposed and only a few might be safe to rule out based on the evidence to date. The chapter begins by describing the standard model of preferences, which generally assumes that valuation is independent of ownership status, and then catalogs early findings that seem to suggest that ownership status influences valuation. Early research tested various potential explanations for observed reluctance to trade, and the results did not point to any one theory. Despite this, the literature gravitated toward a single theory — endowment theory, which assumes that preferences are reference-dependent and that individuals are averse to losses. With endowment theory on the rise, some went to work to investigate the conditions that might trigger loss aversion and those that might reduce its effects. Since the early 1990s, a number of alternative theories have been developed and tested by both economists and psychologists including substitution theory, expectation theory, preference uncertainty, mere-ownership theory, enhancement theory, subject misconceptions, and regret avoidance. The chapter walks through each proposed theory, cataloging the evidence for and against. While some theories have garnered more support from the data than others, no single theory yet deserves the title of leading theory. In addition, the phenomenon itself has proved too unstable to warrant general claims that valuations depend on ownership (or expectations over ownership) or that individuals are generally reluctant to trade. Given the current state of the literature, to make such claims is to misrepresent the full set of results. As this chapter makes clear, much more work is required to develop a theory or set of theories worthy of designation as the leading theory.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130164280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Opening Schumer’s Box: The Empirical Foundations of Modern Consumer Finance Disclosure Law (2015 Final)","authors":"Hosea H. Harvey","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.48.1.opening","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.48.1.opening","url":null,"abstract":"This Article explores the fundamental failure of Congress’ twenty-five-year quest to utilize disclosure as the primary tool to both regulate credit card issuers and educate consumers. From inception until present, reforms to this disclosure regime, even when premised on judgment and decision-making behavioralism, were nomothetic in orientation and ignored clear differences in population behavior and the heterogeniety of consumers. Current law prohibits credit card issuers from acquiring consumer socio-demographic data and prevents issuers and regulators from using market and policy experimentation to enhance disclosure’s efficacy. To explain why this regime was structured this way and why it must change, this Article contains four key sections: (1) a comprehensive review of the creation of our modern consumer credit card regulatory scheme; (2) a survey of the empirical evidence used to update and expand that disclosure-centered regime over twenty-five years; (3) an account of why the existing scheme’s disclosure function substantially fails, notwithstanding recent reforms; and (4) an argument that to achieve optimal credit card disclosure efficacy, the law must permit issuers to acquire and utilize customer socio-demographic information, including race, gender, and other characteristics.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134294416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Dangerous Do You Think it is? A Perception of Risk Approach to the Standard of Care in Negligence","authors":"Ohad Somech","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2559198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2559198","url":null,"abstract":"Be it driving a car, fixing your toaster or investing in complex derivatives, we have all grown accustomed to risk playing an integral part in our society. Nowhere is the idea of constant exposure to risk more clear than in the law of negligence. Indeed negligence in general and the standard of care in particular can be thought of as drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable creation of and exposure to risk. This framework of thought, however, ignores a more basic role played by the law of negligence: deciding on the concept of risk our society should adopt. It is this preliminary discussion the article wish to address; challenging the current, technical approach to risk, for its failure to maximize social welfare, and proposing a Perception of Risk approach to replace it. After describing the Perception of Risk approach, the article continues in four parts. First, on a normative plane, the Perception of Risk approach is demonstrated as welfare maximizing. Second, a formal model of the Perception of Risk approach is presented. Third, the proposed approach is proven optimal when applied to case studies and compared with current legal doctrine. Fourth and finally, possible limitations of the Perception of Risk approach are addressed.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"423 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114250179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On the Expressive Function of Law","authors":"C. Sunstein","doi":"10.2307/3312647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3312647","url":null,"abstract":"In this Article I explore the expressive function of law - the function of law in \"making statements\" as opposed to controlling behavior directly. I do so by focusing on the particular issue of how legal \"statements\" might be designed to change social norms. I catalogue a range of possible (and in my view legitimate) efforts to alter norms through legal expressions about appropriate evaluative attitudes. I also argue that the expressive function of law makes most sense in connection with efforts to change norms and that if legal statements produce bad consequences, they should not be enacted even if they seem reasonable or noble. Empirical questions loom throughout, and I do offer empirical claims; but my goal is normative as well as descriptive or positive.This Article is divided into seven parts. Part I offers some definitional notes. Part II discusses the use of legal \"statements\" as a means of correcting social norms that all or most people disapprove. Part III deals with risk-taking behavior. Part IV explores the use of law to fortify norms involving the appropriate use of money. Part V discusses issues of equality. Part VI qualifies the basic argument. It discusses the relationship between the expressive function of law and the issue of consequences; it also explores constraints on the use of law to express judgments about appropriate values.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125375839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}