Abstract Principles and Concrete Cases in Intuitive Lawmaking

  • Ira Mark Ellman
  • Sanford L. Braver
  • Robert J. MacCoun
Original Article


Citizens awaiting jury service were asked a series of items, in Likert format, to determine their endorsement of various statements about principles to use in setting child support amounts. These twenty items were derived from extant child support systems, from past literature and from Ellman and Ellman’s (2008) Theory of Child Support. The twenty items were found to coalesce into four factors (principles). There were pervasive gender differences in respondent’s endorsement of the principles. More importantly, three of these four principles were systematically reflected, in very rational (if complex) ways, in the respondents’ resolution of the individual child support cases they were asked to decide. Differences among respondents in their endorsement of these three principles accounted for differences in their patterns of child support judgments. It is suggested that the pattern of coherent arbitrariness (Ariely et al., Q J Econ 118(1):73–105, 2003) in those support judgments, noted in an earlier study (Ellman, Braver, & MacCoun, 2009) is thus partially explained, in that the seeming arbitrariness of respondents’ initial support judgments reflect in part their differing views about the basic principles that should decide the cases.


Child support  Decision-making Judgments Family law Moral intuition 


  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–105. doi: 10.1162/00335530360535153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Braver, S. L., MacCoun, R., & Ellman, I. M. (2008). Converting sentiments to dollars: Scaling and incommensurability problems in the evalution of child support payments. Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121240.
  6. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Current Population Survey. (2006). U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Table HINC-01, Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2005. Retrieved from http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new01_001.htm
  9. Daniels, N. (2008). Reflective equilibrium. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/reflective-equilibrium/
  10. Eisenberg, M. A. (1983). The modernization of corporate law: An essay for Bill Cary. University of Miami Law Review, 37(2), 187–212.Google Scholar
  11. Ellman, I. M., Braver, S., & MacCoun, R. J. (2009). Intuitive lawmaking: The example of child support. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 69–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01138.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellman, I. M., & Ellman, T. (2008). The theory of child support. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 45(1), 107–164.Google Scholar
  13. Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Velez, C. (2010). Custody and parenting time: Links to family relationships and well-being after divorce. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Role of the father in child development (5th ed.) (pp. 201–240). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1996). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–275. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guidelines for setting child support awards, 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(c)(2) (2010).Google Scholar
  18. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, R. J. (2001). A primer of multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 220–242. doi: 10.1023/A:1007835629236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49–86. doi: 10.1023/A:1007710408413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legler, P. (2003). Low-income fathers and child support: Starting off on the right track. Denver: Policy Studies Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Levi, E. H. (1949). An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pirog, M., Grieshop, T., & Elliot, B. (2003). Presumptive state child support guidelines: A decade of experience. Policy Currents, 12, 16–32.Google Scholar
  26. Raudenbush, S. W., & Chan, W. S. (1993). Application of hierarchical linear models to study adolescent deviance in an overlapping cohort design. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 61(6), 941–951. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.6.941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robbennolt, J. K., Darley, J. M., & MacCoun, R. J. (2003). Symbolism and incommensurability in civil sanctioning: Decision-makers as goal managers, symposium on responsibility and blame: Psychological and legal perspectives. Brooklyn Law Review, 18(4), 1121–1158.Google Scholar
  28. Robbennolt, J. K., MacCoun, R. J., & Darley, J. M. (2010). Constraint satisfaction and judging. In D. Klein & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 27–40). Oxford. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0002.
  29. Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 511–586.Google Scholar
  30. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331–336. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stalans, L. J. (1993). Citizens’ crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Streiner, D. L. (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 135–140.Google Scholar
  35. Sunstein, C., Hastie, R., Payne, J. W., Schkade, D. A., & Viscusi, W. K. (2003). Punitive damages: How juries decide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind: Multiple-factor analysis for the isolation of primary traits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venohr, J., & Griffith, T. E. (2003). Arizona child support guidelines, findings from a case file review. Denver, CO: Policy Studies Inc. Retrieved from http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/Pdf/psi2.pdf
  38. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 446–496). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ira Mark Ellman
    • 1
  • Sanford L. Braver
    • 2
  • Robert J. MacCoun
    • 3
  1. 1.Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Schools of Public Policy and LawUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations