Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court

Abstract

It is conventional in research on the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court to rely on a survey question asking about confidence in the leaders of the Court to indicate something about the esteem with which that institution is regarded by the American people. The purpose of this article is to investigate the validity of this measure. Based on a nationally representative survey conducted in 2001, we compare confidence with several different measures of Court legitimacy. Our findings indicate that the confidence replies seem to reflect both short-term and long-term judgments about the Court, with the greater influence coming from satisfaction with how the Court is performing at the moment. We suggest a new set of indicators for measuring the legitimacy of the Court and offer some evidence on the structure of the variance in these items.

The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: results from confirmatory factor analyses

“…Our studies and analyses, however, also offer tools-that is, samples of items assessing a number of trustrelevant constructs that worked relatively well across four contexts-that researchers can use to continue such work. Integrity ( (Gibson, Caldeira, & Spence, 2003;Grau, Chandler, Burton, & Kolditz, 1991) Shared Values (Earle & Siegrist, 2006;Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2006) …”

“…Other times, however, trust is assessed by explicitly asking people about their willingness to behaviorally support, give control to, rely upon, or otherwise be vulnerable to the trustee in general or specific ways (Gillespie, 2003;Mayer & Davis, 1999). Some have also distinguished between a willingness to support that may be temporary and related to specific policies or actions of the institution, and more diffuse and resilient willingness to support that may withstand disappointments and fluctuations in satisfaction with the trustee (Easton, 1975;Gibson, Caldeira, & Spence, 2003) . We refer to this more resilient willingness to support as "loyal trust" and assess it with items that more specifically target the durability of one's trust, such as "I generally support [institution] even when I disagree with some of its decisions" and "I feel a sense of loyalty to [institution].…”

“…Ability refers to perceptions that the trustee has the competence and knowledge to fulfill or live up to the trustor's trust. Perceptions of legitimacythe institution's rightful and appropriate holding and use of power (Gau, 2012;Gibson et al, 2003;Gibson, Caldeira, & Spence, 2005;Jackson & Gau, 2015;Tyler & Fagan, 2008;Tyler & Huo, 2002)-may also reflect perceptions of ability because competency-based credentials and licenses are key means by which to improve perceptions of legitimacy (Tyler & Huo, 2002).…”

Sensationalism and Sobriety Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts

“…The data for our study come from two nationally representative surveys sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation Trust Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence (2003b). For the U.S. Supreme Court, respondents were asked to respond to several statements about the Court: the extent to which they agree that the Court (1) is politically motivated, (2) favors some groups over others, and (3) is too mixed up in politics; the extent to which the Court (4) can be trusted to operate in the public's best interests, and (5) can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the country; and finally, the extent to which they agree that (6) it would be better to do away with the Court 1.…”

“…Debates about evaluative orientations toward courts usually revolve around specific support (approval of court outputs) versus diffuse support (institutional legitimacy), and conceptual differences do indeed exist between the two (see Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence 2003b). Although approval is generally considered to tap specific support, Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence (2003b) have measured diffuse support of the Supreme Court with items tapping generalized trust, politicization (e.g., whether the Court is "too mixed up in politics"), and a willingness to reject fundamental alterations to the institution. The items capture the public's perceptions of institutional loyalty and legitimacy.…”