Doctoral Dissertation Research in Law and Social Science

上诉权是美国司法制度中的一个重要因素 这不仅是因为它影响到国家的地位， 个人在政治体系中的作用，也因为它的使用定义了 司法的真实的范围。 因此，A 失去诉讼当事人上诉或不上诉， 政治制度的运作和合法性。 这 这个问题在理论上得到了解决，产生了一个 一系列旨在解释上诉决定的模型： 一个系统模型，它将决策的解释定位于 在司法系统本身的结构和程序中提出上诉; 个人资源模型，将决策归因于 诉讼当事人获得资源的途径;一个经济模型表明， 成本和收益的计算决定了决策;以及 心理学模型，假定三个动机过程， 命名，指责和索赔。 这些模型都假设 诉讼的决定取决于对诉讼的某种回应。 案件的审判结果，但还没有实证工作， 来测试这些模型的有效性。 另一种理论 诉讼决策不仅关注任何案件的结果， 案件，但也对如何达到这一结果的程序影响， 诉讼当事人 实证研究这种“程序正义 在审判一级的“因素”表明，它可以适用于 决定上诉。 这篇博士论文提出了测试假设来自 这些不同的理论。 数据将从多个 源 首先，调查人员将分析来自 兰德公司/国际法院研究报告。 第二，将进行60次开放式面试， 在侵权和合同案件中， 向库克县上诉法院提交上诉通知书 在芝加哥。 为了测试外部有效性， 类似的小组将在明尼苏达州的拉姆齐县接受采访。 一组选择不上诉的败诉诉讼当事人将 在每个司法管辖区都要接受采访。 第三，广泛 将向100名上诉人和100名非上诉人发出问卷， 侵权和合同诉讼的上诉人，包括原告和 及被告上诉人。 各种定量和定性 分析将被用来测试各种有效性 上面讨论的解释模型。 该研究将为我国的环境保护工作做出重要的理论贡献 了解司法系统内的个人动态。 这一发现将澄清关于这个角色的持续争论 的诉讼动机，并提供了经验基础， 解释这些动机如何影响上诉程序。

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.