Does the identity of a majority opinion writer affect the level of agreement a Supreme Court decision receives from the public? Using a survey experiment, we manipulate majority opinion authors to investigate whether individuals are willing to agree with Supreme Court opinions authored by ideologically similar justices even though the decisions cut against their self-identified ideological policy preferences. Our study provides insight into the extent to which policy cues—represented by a political institution’s policy messenger—affect agreement with a given policy. We find that a messenger effect indeed augments the level of agreement a given Supreme Court case receives.
AdamanyDavid. 1973. “Legitimacy, Realigning Elections, and the Supreme Court.” Wisconsin Law Review3:790–846.
3.
BaasLarry R.ThomasDan. 1984. “The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation: Experimental Tests.” American Politics Research12 (3): 335–60.
4.
BarnesRobert. 2013. “With the Fourth Amendment, Things Aren’t So Predictable.” The Washington Post, April1, A11.
5.
BerinskiAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
6.
BishinBenjaminHayesThomasIncantalupoMatthewSmithCharles Anthony. 2013. “Testing Backlash: The Influence of Political Institutions on Public Attitudes on Gay Rights.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
7.
BlumnerRobyn. 2013. “The Price of Punishment.” Tampa Bay Times, October27, 5P.
8.
BuhrmesterMichaelKangTracyGoslingSamuel. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, yet High Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science6 (1): 3–5.
9.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011).
10.
BullockJohn G.2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
11.
CaldeiraGregory A.1986. “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review80 (4): 1209–26.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36 (3): 635-64.
13.
CarminesEdward G.KuklinskiJames H.1990. “Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation.” In Information and Democratic Processes, edited by FerejohnJohn A.KuklinskiJames H., 240-68. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
14.
ClarkeHarold D.SandersDavidStewartMarianne C.WhiteleyPaul. 2013. “Leader Heuristics, Political Knowledge and Voting in Britain’s AV Referendum.” Electoral Studies32 (2): 224–35.
15.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E., 206-61. New York: Free Press.
16.
CraigStephenMartinezMichaelGainousJasonKaneJames. 2006. “Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly59 (4): 579–92.
17.
DanceyLoganSheagleyGeoffrey. 2013. “Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science57 (2): 313–25.
18.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” Journal of Politics63 (4): 1041–66.
19.
EaglyAlice H.ChaikenShelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Janovich College Publishers.
20.
EastonDavid. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
21.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 66–83.
22.
EstlundDavid M.2007. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
GibsonJames L.2007. “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4 (3): 507–38.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.1992. “Blacks and the United States Supreme Court: Models of Diffuse Support.” Journal of Politics54 (4): 1120–45.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” Journal of Politics71 (2): 429–41.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003b. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–56.
30.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2012. “The Symbols of Judicial Legitimacy: Thinking Fast and Slow about the U.S. Supreme Court.” Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.
31.
GigerenzerGerd. 2008. Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
GigerenzerGerdHertwigRalphPachurThorsten, eds. 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
GrimmerJustinMessingSolomonWestwoodSean. 2012. “How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation.” American Political Science Review106 (4): 706–19.
34.
HammondThomas H.BonneauChris W.SheehanReginald S.2005. Strategic Behavior and Policy Choice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
35.
HoekstraValerie J.1995. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Change: An Experimental Study of the Court’s Ability to Change Opinion.” American Politics Research23 (1): 109–29.
36.
HoekstraValerie J.SegalJeffrey A.1996. “The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb’s Chapel.” Journal of Politics58 (4): 1079–102.
37.
HortonJohnRandDavidZeckhauserRichard. 2011. “The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market.” Experimental Economics14 (3): 399–425.
38.
HuberGregoryHillSethLenzGabriel. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review106 (4): 720–41.
39.
KahanDan M.2011. “Foreword: Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review125 (1): 1–77.
40.
KahnemanDaniel. 2003. “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality.” American Psychologist58 (9): 697–720.
41.
KahnemanDaniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
42.
KahnemanDanielFrederickShane. 2002. “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment.” In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, edited by GilovichThomasGriffinDaleKahnemanDaniel, 49-81. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
KamCindy D.2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior27 (2): 163–82.
44.
LaxJeffrey R.CameronCharles M.2007. “Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization23 (2): 276–302.
45.
LiptakAdam. 2011. “Supreme Court Ruling Accepts No Substitutes in Crime Lab Testimony.” The New York Times, June24, A16.
46.
LiptakAdam. 2013. “Justices Allow DNA Collection after an Arrest.” The New York Times, June4, A1.
47.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 63–76.
48.
MaltzmanForrestSpriggsJames F.WahlbeckPaul J.2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
MaltzmanForrestWahlbeckPaul J.1996. “Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court.” American Political Science Review90 (3): 581–92.
50.
Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013).
51.
MasonAlpheus T.1956. Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law. New York: Viking Press.
52.
MoehlerDevraLindbergSteffan. 2009. “Narrowing the Legitimacy Gap: Turnovers as a Cause of Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Politics71 (4): 1448–66.
53.
MondakJeffrey J.1990. “Perceived Legitimacy of Supreme Court Decisions: Three Functions of Source Credibility.” Political Behavior12 (4): 363–84.
54.
MondakJeffrey J.1992. “Institutional Legitimacy, Policy Legitimacy, and the Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly20 (4): 457–77.
55.
MondakJeffrey J.1993. “Public Opinion and Heuristic Processing of Source Cues.” Political Behavior15 (2): 167–192.
56.
MondakJeffrey J.1994. “Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of Legitimation.” Political Research Quarterly47 (3): 675–92.
57.
NicholosonStephen P.2011. “Dominating Cures and the Limits of Elite Influence.” Journal of Politics73 (4): 1165–77.
58.
NicholsonStephen P.HansfordThomas G.2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 620–36.
59.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.1986. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Boulder: Westview Press.
60.
RohdeDavid W.1972. “Policy Goals, Strategic Choices, and Majority Opinion Assignment, 1946-1962.” Western Political Quarterly16: 652–82.
61.
RyanTimothy. 2012. “What Makes Us Click? Demonstrating Incentives for Angry Discourse with Digital-Age Field Experiments.” Journal of Politics74 (4): 1138–52.
62.
SchebJohn M.IILyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81 (4): 928–40.
63.
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 657 (1944).
64.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–69.
65.
TurnerJoel. 2007. “The Messenger Overwhelming the Message: Ideological Cues and Perceptions of Bias in Television News.” Political Behavior29 (4): 441–64.
66.
VerbaSidney. 2006. “Fairness, Equality and Diversity: Three Big Words.” Social Research73 (2): 499–540.
67.
WellsChrisReedyJustinGastilJohnLeeCarolyn. 2009. “Information Distortion and Voting Choices: The Origins and Effects of Factual Beliefs in Initiative Elections.” Political Psychology30 (6): 953–69.
68.
YatesJeffWhitfordAndrew B.2002. “The Presidency and the Supreme Court after Bush v. Gore: Implications for Legitimacy and Effectiveness.” Stanford Law & Policy Review13 (1): 101–18.
69.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.ScottJohn T.2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–25.
