Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont provoqué une onde de choc aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier. Pour y faire face, le gouvernement a adopté des mesures exceptionnelles. Notre étude se penche sur la doctrine américaine. John Yoo, Professeur à l’Université de Berkeley, a joué un rôle de premier plan au sein de l’Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) au moment des attentats. Depuis cette période, il ne cesse de revenir sur la manière dont le gouvernement des États-Unis a réagi à la suite des évènements. Partant d’une perspective utilitariste, Éric Posner et Adrian Vermeule proposent quant à eux une théorie de l’exception qui renverse la plupart des opinions traditionnellement admises et défendues. La problématique essentielle qui scande l’ensemble de notre travail est de saisir, de l’intérieur, à partir d’une lecture des ouvrages des trois auteurs, les tensions fondamentales de l’approche retenue par le gouvernement des États-Unis, au regard de la tradition constitutionnelle du pays. / The attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a shock wave both in the United States and the wholeworld. In the aftermath, the government adopted extraordinary measures to address the threat. Our study focuses on contemporary American legal scholars. John Yoo, Professor at Berkeley University, played a significant role within the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time of the attacks. Since then, he has never stopped addressing how the United States government reacted in the wake of these events. Using a utilitarian perspective, Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule, for their part, bring forward a state of exception theory which dismisses certain views that are commonly accepted and embraced. The main issue that guides the whole of our work is to try and comprehend – from within and through reading of the three authors’ writings – the fundamental tensions of the approach adopted by the United States government in view of the country’s constitutional tradition.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Psychological Sciences / Gary Brase / Brand Equity is a common phrase in consumer research, but there is still a lot of ambiguity surrounding the measurement of this concept (Keller, 2008). Several methods of measurement have been proposed over the years, but no one method has been adopted as the ideal way to predict purchase intent and measure brand equity. The current research tested three theories—Social Exchange Theory (SET), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and the Yoo and Donthu model—to see which is the best predictor of purchase intent and brand equity. SET assumes consumers weigh the costs and rewards of purchasing the product. TPB uses consumers’ attitudes over purchasing the product, subjective norms of what others would do, and the perceived behavioral control consumers have in actually purchasing the product. The Yoo and Donthu model has been used most often of the three theories in measuring brand equity and includes measures of brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness/associations, and overall brand equity. Study 1 assessed consumer durable products (TV and athletic shoes) and Study 2 assessed consumer non-durable products (soap and toothpaste). Consumers evaluated these products online based on a picture of the product, the brand name, price, customer reviews, quality ratings, and an advertisement and then indicated their likelihood to purchase the product. Theory of Planned Behavior was the best predictor of purchase intent across all four products assessed indicating that consumers look at external factors such as what others would do as well as how much control they have over purchasing the product as much as they consider their own attitudes.