Doctoral Dissertation Research in Law and Social Science

上诉权是美国司法制度中的一个关键因素，不仅因为它对个人在政治制度中的地位有影响，而且因为它的使用界定了司法的真正范围。因此，败诉的当事人决定上诉或不上诉，对政治制度的运作和合法性具有重要意义。这一问题已在理论层面得到解决，产生了一系列旨在解释上诉决定的模式：系统模式，将上诉决定的解释定位于司法系统本身的结构和程序；个人资源模式，将决定归因于当事人获得资源的机会；一个经济模型表明，成本和收益的计算决定了决策；一个心理模型假设了命名、指责和索赔三个动机过程。这些模型都假设诉讼的决定是由对案件审判结果的某种反应决定的，但还没有做过实证工作来检验这些模型的有效性。诉讼决策的另一种理论不仅关注任何案件的结果，还关注达成该结果的程序如何影响诉讼当事人。在审判一级对这一“程序公正因素”进行的实证研究表明，它可以适用于上诉决定。这篇博士论文建议检验从这些不同的理论中得出的假设。数据将从几个来源收集。首先，调查员将分析兰德/ICJ研究的采访数据。其次，将对向芝加哥库克县上诉法院提交上诉通知的侵权和合同案件中败诉的诉讼当事人进行60次开放式访谈。为了测试外部效度，将在明尼苏达州的拉姆齐县对一组类似的人进行访谈。选择不上诉的败诉诉讼当事人的控制组也将在每个司法管辖区接受采访。第三，将向侵权和合同诉讼中的100名上诉人和100名非上诉人发放广泛的问卷，包括原告和被告上诉人。将采用各种定量和定性分析来检验上述各种解释模型的有效性。这项研究将为我们理解司法系统中的个体动态做出重要的理论贡献。这些发现将澄清关于诉讼动机性质的持续辩论，并为解释这些动机如何影响上诉程序提供经验基础。

The right of appeal is a critical factor in the American judicial system not only because of its implications for the status of the individual in the political system but also because its use defines the real scope of the judiciary. Therefore, the decision by a losing litigant to appeal, or not to appeal, carries great import for the functioning and legitimacy of the political system. This issue has been addressed at the theoretical level, producing a range of models purporting to account for the decision to appeal: a systemic model, that locates the explanation of a decision to appeal in the structure and process of the judicial system itself; an individual resources model, that imputes the decision to the litigant's access to resources; an economic model suggesting that a calculus of costs and benefits determines the decision; and a psychological model that posits three motivational processes of naming, blaming and claiming. These models all assume that the decision to litigate is determined by some kind of response to the outcome of the case at trial, but no empirical work has yet been done to test the validity of these models. Another theory of litigant decision-making focuses not only on the outcome of any case but also on how the procedure to reach that outcome affects the litigant. Empirical studies of this "procedural justice factor" at the trial level suggest that it could be applicable to the decision to appeal. This doctoral dissertation proposes to test hypotheses drawn from these various theories. Data will be collected from several sources. First, the investigator will analyze interview data from the RAND/ICJ study. Second, 60 open-ended interviews will be conducted with losing litigants in tort and contract cases who filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals of Cook County in Chicago. For purposes of testing external validity, a comparable group will be interviewed in Ramsey County in Minnesota. A control group of losing litigants who chose not to appeal will also be interviewed in each jurisdiction. Third, an extensive questionnaire will be administered to 100 appellants and 100 non- appellants in tort and contract actions, including both plaintiff and defendant appellants. Various quantitative and qualitative analyses will be employed to test the validity of the various explanatory models discussed above. The research will make an important theoretical contribution to our understanding of individual dynamics within the judicial system. The findings will clarify a continuing debate over the character of litigant motivations, and provide an empirical basis for interpreting how these motivations affect the appellate process.