Upload
avi
View
64
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. . Study Design. Sample Vignette Measures Experimental Manipulation. 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz: Alleged rape of female college student by male student acquaintance. Complainant says “no” repeatedly, but does not physically resist. Multiple subject to opposing interpretations based on competing “scripts” or templates.
Worldviews Demographic characteristics Fact Perceptions Verdict
Alternative formulations of legal definition of rape: common law, “strict liability,” “reform,” “no means no”
Sample
Vignette
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Strongly Disagree15%
Moderately Disagree11%
Slightly Disagree17%
Slightly Agree17%
Moderately Agree16%
Strongly Agree24%
“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Response frequencies, all conditions (N = 1,500)
Agree: 57%Disagree: 43%
1 GUILTY
2 DEF_FACTS
3 CONSENT
4 UNFAIR
No definition -0.17 (0.15) 0.01 (0.10) 0.05 (0.15) 0.12 (0.15) No Means No 0.44 (0.15) -0.28 (0.10) -0.43 (0.15) -0.46 (0.15) Strict Liability 0.04 (0.14) -0.05 (0.10) -0.10 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Reform 0.16 (0.15) -0.07 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Male -0.41 (0.31) 0.46 (0.20) 0.89 (0.32) 0.45 (0.31) White 0.05 (0.17) -0.16 (0.11) -0.21 (0.17) -0.26 (0.17) Other Minority 0.04 (0.20) -0.16 (0.13) -0.04 (0.20) -0.18 (0.20) Age -0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) Income -0.03 (0.02) 0.00 (0.01) -0.02 (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Education 0.07 (0.04) -0.05 (0.02) -0.13 (0.04) -0.06 (0.04) Urbanicity 0.00 (0.09) -0.01 (0.06) -0.05 (0.09) -0.01 (0.09) Jewish 0.20 (0.37) -0.06 (0.24) -0.11 (0.39) -0.15 (0.37) Protestant 0.04 (0.14) -0.08 (0.09) -0.13 (0.15) -0.12 (0.14) Catholic -0.10 (0.15) 0.05 (0.10) 0.24 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) Other Christian 0.04 (0.16) -0.05 (0.10) 0.07 (0.16) -0.12 (0.16) Non-Judeo-Christ -0.07 (0.19) 0.01 (0.13) 0.16 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) Northeast 0.33 (0.14) -0.21 (0.09) -0.38 (0.15) -0.44 (0.14) Midwest 0.10 (0.12) -0.07 (0.08) -0.21 (0.12) -0.21 (0.12) Farwest 0.31 (0.14) -0.12 (0.09) -0.15 (0.14) -0.33 (0.14) Mountain -0.03 (0.19) 0.04 (0.13) -0.07 (0.19) -0.21 (0.19) Libcon 0.07 (0.07) -0.06 (0.04) -0.12 (0.06) -0.15 (0.06) Democrat -0.18 (0.15) 0.17 (0.10) 0.24 (0.16) 0.17 (0.16) Other Party -0.49 (0.25) 0.33 (0.16) 0.35 (0.24) 0.46 (0.24) Independent 0.03 (0.14) -0.04 (0.09) -0.07 (0.14) -0.03 (0.14) Hierarch -0.49 (0.09) 0.40 (0.06) 0.66 (0.09) 0.50 (0.09) Individ 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.05 (0.08) 0.09 (0.07) Hierarch x Male 0.15 (0.09) -0.13 (0.06) -0.26 (0.09) -0.15 (0.09) R2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 N = 1,500. Models 1, 3, and 4 are ordered logistical regression (logit coefficients). Model 2 is an OLS linear regression (unstandardized beta weight coefficients). Bolded coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05. Standard errors in parentheses. R2 for models 1, 3, and 4 are pseudo R2.
from Dan M. Kahan, Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in 'Acquaintance Rape' Cases, 158 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 729 (2010).
1. Theory: Identity-protective cognition (cf. Alicke)
2. Existing research: “token resistance” script (see Mulholland et al.)
3. Prediction: Perception that “no means yes” is identity-protective for hierarchs, particularly women, so they will favor conviction, regardless of legal formulation.
Hypotheses: Who sees what & why?
Pct
. Agr
eein
g“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
77% 75%64% 61% 56% 52% 50% 45%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
≤30 y.o.Female
Egalitarian
≤30 y.o.Male
Egalitarian
≥60 y.o. Male
Egalitarian
≥60 y.o.Female
Egalitarian
≤30 y.o.Female
Hierarch
≥60 y.o Male
Hierarch
≤30 y.o Male
Hierarch
≥60 y.o.Female
Hierarch
Responses for subjects defined by gender, age, & cultural worldview
1 GUILTY
2 DEF_FACTS
3 CONSENT
4 UNFAIR
No definition -0.17 (0.15) 0.01 (0.10) 0.05 (0.15) 0.12 (0.15) No Means No 0.44 (0.15) -0.28 (0.10) -0.43 (0.15) -0.46 (0.15) Strict Liability 0.04 (0.14) -0.05 (0.10) -0.10 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Reform 0.16 (0.15) -0.07 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Male -0.41 (0.31) 0.46 (0.20) 0.89 (0.32) 0.45 (0.31) White 0.05 (0.17) -0.16 (0.11) -0.21 (0.17) -0.26 (0.17) Other Minority 0.04 (0.20) -0.16 (0.13) -0.04 (0.20) -0.18 (0.20) Age -0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) Income -0.03 (0.02) 0.00 (0.01) -0.02 (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Education 0.07 (0.04) -0.05 (0.02) -0.13 (0.04) -0.06 (0.04) Urbanicity 0.00 (0.09) -0.01 (0.06) -0.05 (0.09) -0.01 (0.09) Jewish 0.20 (0.37) -0.06 (0.24) -0.11 (0.39) -0.15 (0.37) Protestant 0.04 (0.14) -0.08 (0.09) -0.13 (0.15) -0.12 (0.14) Catholic -0.10 (0.15) 0.05 (0.10) 0.24 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) Other Christian 0.04 (0.16) -0.05 (0.10) 0.07 (0.16) -0.12 (0.16) Non-Judeo-Christ -0.07 (0.19) 0.01 (0.13) 0.16 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) Northeast 0.33 (0.14) -0.21 (0.09) -0.38 (0.15) -0.44 (0.14) Midwest 0.10 (0.12) -0.07 (0.08) -0.21 (0.12) -0.21 (0.12) Farwest 0.31 (0.14) -0.12 (0.09) -0.15 (0.14) -0.33 (0.14) Mountain -0.03 (0.19) 0.04 (0.13) -0.07 (0.19) -0.21 (0.19) Libcon 0.07 (0.07) -0.06 (0.04) -0.12 (0.06) -0.15 (0.06) Democrat -0.18 (0.15) 0.17 (0.10) 0.24 (0.16) 0.17 (0.16) Other Party -0.49 (0.25) 0.33 (0.16) 0.35 (0.24) 0.46 (0.24) Independent 0.03 (0.14) -0.04 (0.09) -0.07 (0.14) -0.03 (0.14) Hierarch -0.49 (0.09) 0.40 (0.06) 0.66 (0.09) 0.50 (0.09) Individ 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.05 (0.08) 0.09 (0.07) Hierarch x Male 0.15 (0.09) -0.13 (0.06) -0.26 (0.09) -0.15 (0.09) R2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 N = 1,500. Models 1, 3, and 4 are ordered logistical regression (logit coefficients). Model 2 is an OLS linear regression (unstandardized beta weight coefficients). Bolded coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05. Standard errors in parentheses. R2 for models 1, 3, and 4 are pseudo R2.
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
0%
28%
8%
11%
-6%
-3%
21%
34%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
“Despite what she said or might have felt after, Lucy really did consent to sexual intercourse with Dave.”
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
2%
23%
-3%
-4%
-4%
-11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
“It would be unfair to convict Dave of a crime as serious as rape.”
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
Common Law vs. No Def.
Strict Liab. vs. Common Law
Reform vs. Common Law
No means No vs. Common Law
Female vs. Male
Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian
South vs. Northeast
Repub. vs. Democrat
Conservative vs. Liberal
Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male
Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female
White v. Black
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch vs. Egalitarian
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male
60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male
“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male
Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female
4%
1%
4%
-3%
-23%
-8%
4%
4%
1%
-7%
-12%
1%
-3%
-19%
-27%
11%
-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%
1 GUILTY
2 DEF_FACTS
3 CONSENT
4 UNFAIR
No definition -0.17 (0.15) 0.01 (0.10) 0.05 (0.15) 0.12 (0.15) No Means No 0.44 (0.15) -0.28 (0.10) -0.43 (0.15) -0.46 (0.15) Strict Liability 0.04 (0.14) -0.05 (0.10) -0.10 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Reform 0.16 (0.15) -0.07 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Male -0.41 (0.31) 0.46 (0.20) 0.89 (0.32) 0.45 (0.31) White 0.05 (0.17) -0.16 (0.11) -0.21 (0.17) -0.26 (0.17) Other Minority 0.04 (0.20) -0.16 (0.13) -0.04 (0.20) -0.18 (0.20) Age -0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) Income -0.03 (0.02) 0.00 (0.01) -0.02 (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Education 0.07 (0.04) -0.05 (0.02) -0.13 (0.04) -0.06 (0.04) Urbanicity 0.00 (0.09) -0.01 (0.06) -0.05 (0.09) -0.01 (0.09) Jewish 0.20 (0.37) -0.06 (0.24) -0.11 (0.39) -0.15 (0.37) Protestant 0.04 (0.14) -0.08 (0.09) -0.13 (0.15) -0.12 (0.14) Catholic -0.10 (0.15) 0.05 (0.10) 0.24 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) Other Christian 0.04 (0.16) -0.05 (0.10) 0.07 (0.16) -0.12 (0.16) Non-Judeo-Christ -0.07 (0.19) 0.01 (0.13) 0.16 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) Northeast 0.33 (0.14) -0.21 (0.09) -0.38 (0.15) -0.44 (0.14) Midwest 0.10 (0.12) -0.07 (0.08) -0.21 (0.12) -0.21 (0.12) Farwest 0.31 (0.14) -0.12 (0.09) -0.15 (0.14) -0.33 (0.14) Mountain -0.03 (0.19) 0.04 (0.13) -0.07 (0.19) -0.21 (0.19) Libcon 0.07 (0.07) -0.06 (0.04) -0.12 (0.06) -0.15 (0.06) Democrat -0.18 (0.15) 0.17 (0.10) 0.24 (0.16) 0.17 (0.16) Other Party -0.49 (0.25) 0.33 (0.16) 0.35 (0.24) 0.46 (0.24) Independent 0.03 (0.14) -0.04 (0.09) -0.07 (0.14) -0.03 (0.14) Hierarch -0.49 (0.09) 0.40 (0.06) 0.66 (0.09) 0.50 (0.09) Individ 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.05 (0.08) 0.09 (0.07) Hierarch x Male 0.15 (0.09) -0.13 (0.06) -0.26 (0.09) -0.15 (0.09) R2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 N = 1,500. Models 1, 3, and 4 are ordered logistical regression (logit coefficients). Model 2 is an OLS linear regression (unstandardized beta weight coefficients). Bolded coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05. Standard errors in parentheses. R2 for models 1, 3, and 4 are pseudo R2.
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
But maybe Berkeley would be closer to this if the simulation reflected the “venire” members’ cultural outlooks & not just their demographic characteristics.
from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)
What to make of all this?
1. Theory debate: feminism vs. conventionalism
2. Efficacy of law reform
3. Social norms & law
4. Alternatives to criminal law