Abstract principles and concrete cases in intuitive lawmaking.

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Family Law
• Behavioral Economics

Background:

• Child support guidelines aim for fairness but can lead to inconsistent judgments.
• Existing research suggests 'coherent arbitrariness' in child support decisions.
• Understanding the principles guiding these decisions is crucial for legal reform.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify the underlying principles citizens use when determining child support amounts.
• To investigate gender differences in the endorsement of these principles.
• To explain the 'coherent arbitrariness' observed in child support judgments.

Main Methods:

• Survey of citizens awaiting jury service using Likert-scale items on child support principles.
• Factor analysis to identify underlying principles (four factors emerged).
• Analysis of how endorsed principles influenced simulated child support case decisions.

Main Results:

• Four distinct principles for setting child support were identified.
• Significant gender differences were found in the endorsement of these principles.
• Three principles systematically predicted how respondents decided child support cases.

Conclusions:

• Individual differences in child support principles partially explain seemingly arbitrary judgment patterns.
• Understanding these principles is key to addressing inconsistencies in child support awards.
• This research offers insights into the psychological underpinnings of legal decision-making.