Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

{"title":"","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 2","pages":"160-171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148114272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 2","pages":"205-223"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148115042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 2","pages":"205-223"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148085048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Chapter 13 Outcomes”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jels.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70022","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hynes, R. M., and N. Pattison. 2025. “Chapter 13 Outcomes.” <i>Journal of Empirical Legal Studies</i> 22, no. 4: 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70003.</p><p>Some in-text statistics in Section 5.1 incorrectly refer to values from an earlier version of Table 3. The table itself is correct and unaffected.</p><p>Later in Section 5.1, we understated two comparisons because we inadvertently used the Debtor Discharge Rate (59.0%) instead of the Represented Debtor Discharge Rate (62.7%).</p><p>We apologize for these errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146136438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring Lawyer Mental Illness: Evidence From Two National Surveys","authors":"Benjamin Pyle,&nbsp;Clifford Rosky","doi":"10.1111/jels.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The American Bar Association has declared a “well-being crisis” among lawyers, but the empirical basis for this claim has been contested in recent years. This study systematically compares two high-quality, nationally representative surveys—the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)—to measure the prevalence of mental illness and alcohol misuse among lawyers. In both surveys, lawyers report elevated rates of alcohol misuse compared with the general public and similarly educated peers. The NHIS finds that lawyers experience psychological distress at rates lower than the general public and similar to, or moderately higher than, similarly educated peers. In the NSDUH, by contrast, more than 40% of lawyers report moderate or serious psychological distress in the past year. This rate is significantly higher than those reported by the general public, by similarly educated peers, and the rate found in the NHIS. While we cannot fully explain all of the differences between the two national surveys, we resolve some of these differences by studying sensitivity to instrument validation and calibration and closely aligning the measurements used in both surveys. To assess the remaining differences, we identify several advantages of the NSDUH, including the privacy of data-gathering methods, additional clinically validated mental illness measures, and results that are more consistent with other national surveys. The persistent divergences between the NHIS and NSDUH underscore the challenges of measuring mental illness and the importance of continued work on survey implementation, validation, analysis, and interpretation.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"60-101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Can Legal Knowledge Save Lives? A Randomized Experiment in Preventive Health Screenings","authors":"Christopher Robertson,&nbsp;Wendy Netter Epstein","doi":"10.1111/jels.70021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While the U.S. healthcare system typically imposes significant out-of-pocket costs on those with insurance, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires full coverage of certain preventive health services. Still, one in four eligible Americans remains unscreened for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer. We hypothesize that a lack of awareness about the ACA's requirement contributes to this gap. Additionally, we investigate whether prior experiences with medical debt deter individuals from seeking even free care, a potential spillover effect of broader healthcare cost burdens. We conducted an online survey experiment with 3354 insured U.S. adults aged 30–74 with moderate household incomes ($30 k–$99 k). We determined whether each one qualified for a free cancer screen based on age and sex, and found that <i>n</i> = 1406 had not received at least one recommended cancer screening. Those participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 factorial design. In the “free care disclosure” (FCD) treatment, half were informed that ACA-required screenings are fully covered without copays or deductibles. In the “medical debt salience” (MDS) treatment, half were asked about their medical debt history before assessing screening intentions. In addition to measures of intention, the primary outcome was behavioral—whether participants requested a link to take a step toward screening, a proxy for screening behavior, which was not observed directly. As hypothesized, FCD increased screening-related behavior by 5 percentage points (<i>p</i> = 0.031), with effects varying by cancer type. Consistently, 45% of respondents indicated that “costs or coverage” was a common reason for not having gotten screening, and large majorities agreed that “going to the doctor or hospital can be dangerous financially,” “the American healthcare system is full of tricks and traps,” and “in America, healthcare is never really free” (80%, 65%, and 91% agreeing, respectively). MDS had no direct effect on behavior, but contrary to the hypothesis, individuals with medical debt were more likely to seek screening than those without (<i>p</i> = 0.011). These findings suggest that a lack of awareness about the law providing free preventive care is a significant barrier to screening. Proactive communication by clinicians or public health officials could save lives.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"24-38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pay Secrecy Bans and the Sharing of Salary Information Among US Workers","authors":"Kristen Underhill,&nbsp;Zohn Rosen,&nbsp;Lisa M. Bates,&nbsp;Francesca Manzi,&nbsp;Leib Litman","doi":"10.1111/jels.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Many states bar employers from requiring or expecting employees to keep pay secret, and from retaliating against employees who discuss pay. In a nationally representative survey of 2369 US adults in 2021, people living in states with state laws barring pay secrecy reported more supportive attitudes regarding information-sharing and less concern about offending co-workers by asking about salary, but little to no difference in information-sharing behavior, beliefs or accuracy regarding the laws. Men were consistently more supportive of information-sharing than women, but the gender differential did not differ between groups of states. We randomized participants in each set of states to learn the law of their jurisdiction. In states with pay secrecy bans, participants who learned about the law reported significantly greater comfort asking others and intentions to ask others about compensation, compared to those who were not given information about the law.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"128-152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Judicial Perceptions of Legal Difficulty: An Empirical Inquiry","authors":"Brian Sheppard,&nbsp;Michael Coenen,&nbsp;Andrew Moshirnia","doi":"10.1111/jels.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The law often asks judges to determine whether a violation is clearly established or whether legal language clearly or unambiguously supports a position. It demands that litigants not raise arguments or claims that would be easily dismissed. And for their part legal scholars have relied on the distinction between easy and hard cases as they delineate the concept of law itself. Yet, few have empirically studied assessments of legal difficulty. Here, we present the results of two studies that provide insight into the reliability of such assessments from laypeople and actual judges. For both populations, our key finding was this: assessments of case difficulty are highly predictive of the vote breakdown in a case; that is, the larger the size of a majority coalition, the lower the average difficulty rating registered by the members of that coalition (and, conversely, the smaller the size of a minority coalition, the higher the rating registered by its members). These results suggest that, while assessments of case difficulty are tied to case outcomes, they are a complex signal. Experiencing the feeling that a case is unusually difficult is not necessarily an indication that you are dealing with a 50/50 case, as is commonly assumed. Instead, it may be an indication that your position on the merits would be decisively rejected by the vast majority of others confronting the same question.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"102-127"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Creditor Rights and Legal Transaction Costs","authors":"Dhruv Chand Aggarwal","doi":"10.1111/jels.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p>I estimate the relationship between increased creditor rights and legal expenditures of debtor corporations by evaluating a securitization law in India allowing secured creditors to seize collateral. The law reduced spending on legal proceedings used by firms to avoid foreclosure, because debt-related litigation decreased. Firms most affected by the law—with high proportions of tangible assets creditors could seize as collateral—significantly decreased spending on lawyers after the legislation. However, some debtor firms affected by the legislation filed for bankruptcy, either because they failed to successfully renegotiate debt with their multiple creditors or because they took advantage of the automatic stay to prevent creditors from seizing their assets. These firms would have incurred legal costs related to the bankruptcy process. Consistent with this intuition, the post-reform decrease in legal costs is smaller for firms that filed for bankruptcy after the legislation or were already closer to insolvency before the reforms. The results indicate that legal transaction costs associated with foreclosure avoidance are sizable and can be eliminated by strengthening contract enforcement.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"4-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146155069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging the Human–AI Fairness Gap: How Providing Reasons Enhances the Perceived Fairness of Public Decision-Making","authors":"Arian Henning,&nbsp;Pascal Langenbach","doi":"10.1111/jels.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Automated legal decision-making is often perceived as less fair than its human counterpart. This human–AI fairness gap poses practical challenges for implementing automated systems in the public sector. Drawing on experimental data from 4250 participants in three public decision-making scenarios, this study examines how different reasoning models influence the perceived fairness of automated and human decision-making. The results show that providing reasons enhances the perceived fairness of decision-making, regardless of whether decisions are made by humans or machines. Moreover, sufficiently individualized reasoning models have a stronger positive impact on the perceived fairness of automated decisions than on the perceived fairness of human decisions. This largely mitigates the human–AI fairness gap. The results thus suggest that well-designed reasons can improve the acceptability of automated governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"39-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.70019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146139827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}