Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions

Zink, James R.; Spriggs, James F.; Scott, John T.

doi:10.1017/s0022381609090793

Cited by 119 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceptions of whether a court is functioning in such a manner are directly tied to the public's willingness to grant legitimacy to that court (Benesh ; Gangl ; Gibson ; Petrick ; Ramirez ; however, see Gibson ; Mondak ). Legitimacy is often defined as diffuse support for the court, or a “reservoir of goodwill” to be tapped when courts make unpopular decisions (Easton ; Gibson ; Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence ; Mondak ; Zink, Spriggs, and Scott ). While legitimacy has been measured in varying ways, the essential components include willingness to support, trust, maintain, and accept the authority of courts in the face of decisions of which one disapproves.…”

Section: Procedural Justice and Perceptions Of Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

Audette¹,

Weaver²

2015

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether judges’ personal characteristics and values bias their decision making has long been debated, yet far less attention has been given to how personal characteristics affect public perceptions of bias in their decision making. Even genuinely objective judges may be perceived as procedurally biased by the public. We hypothesize that membership in a religious out‐group will elicit stronger public perceptions of biased decision making. Using a survey experiment that varies a judge's religious orientation and ruling in a hypothetical Establishment Clause case, we find strong evidence that judges’ religious characteristics affect the perceived legitimacy of their decisions. Identifying a judge as an atheist (a religious out‐group) decreases trust in the court, while identifying the judge as a committed Christian has no bearing on legitimacy. These results are even stronger among respondents who report attending church more often. Thus, we argue that perceptions of bias are conditioned on judges’ in‐group/out‐group status.

show abstract

Section: Procedural Justice and Perceptions Of Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

Audette¹,

Weaver²

2015

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Courts are political institutions, and judges are political actors who are often influenced by factors other than simply the law, such as judicial ideology, personal values, and institutional context. In light of these findings, students of the courts have often asked whether public perceptions of the courts as "political" rather than "legal" institutions affect public approval of and support for the courts (e.g., Gibson, 2007;Gibson & Caldeira, 2011;Zink, Spriggs, & Scott, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Clark

Kastellec

2015

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that the public often relies on cues or heuristics when forming opinions. At the same time, leading theories of opinion formation about the Supreme Court see such support as relatively fixed. Using a series of survey experiments, we find source cues significantly influence the public's support for the Court, including the extent to which individuals believe the Court should be independent from the elected branches. Specifically, we find partisan source cues play a significant role in shaping public opinion regarding life tenure for the justices and the extent to which the Court should have the final say in constitutional matters-individuals are less likely to support court-curbing measures when informed that elites from the opposite party have proposed them than when such measures are endorsed by either a neutral source or members of their own party. We also find a strong connection between specific support for particular decisions and the degree

show abstract

“…9 One concern that people may have with our experimental approach is our utilization of undergraduates as participants in the study. We note other judicial scholars have used undergraduate samples in experiments looking at public assessments of court decisions (e.g., Zink et al 2009;Ramirez 2008). Of course, there are those who question the generalizability of findings from experiments using undergraduate samples; college students are unquestionably younger and more educated, on average, than the general population (Sears 1986).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Responses were measured on a six-point scale anchored at "strongly disagree" (1) and "strongly agree" (6). In using this question as our dependent variable, we follow Zink et al (2009; analyzing single measures of undergraduate participants' acceptance of and agreement with specific court decisions described in experimental vignettes). Moreover, this single measure has the advantage of being relatively straightforward and easily interpretable (Gibson 2008).…”

Section: Design In Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative Legitimacy: Rules of Appropriateness in Citizens’ Assessments of Individual Judicial Decisions

Braman

Easter

2014

Justice System Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions

Cited by 119 publications

References 44 publications

Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court

Normative Legitimacy: Rules of Appropriateness in Citizens’ Assessments of Individual Judicial Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About