Although public support for the U.S. Supreme Court is generally stable, various cues and heuristics affect how individuals derive political opinions. And while the Court is capable of conferring support on its own decisions, information from extra-judicial sources—such as presidential candidates—may have a potentially (de)legitimizing influence on individuals and their attitudes. Using a survey experimental design, I manipulate the source of negative statements about the judiciary to determine whether extra-judicial actors are capable of altering support for the Court and, if so, whether it is via ideological updating or is a purely affective response. I find that political actors unrelated to the Court are capable of producing change in attitudes and that those changes are affective. Those positive toward the cue source decrease their level of support upon hearing indicting statements, and vice versa, but individuals do not alter their perceived ideological distance from the Court. This finding has implications for the stability of the support on which the Court relies to expect compliance with its rulings, as well as how affective attachments to groups and their representatives influence institutional loyalty.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 333–54.
4.
BairdVanessa A.GanglAmy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27 (4): 597–613.
5.
BarabasJasonJeritJennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review104 (2): 226–42.
6.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–99.
7.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
BullockJohn G.2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.1986. “Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review80 (4): 1209–26.
13.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36:635–64.
14.
CampbellAngusConversePhillip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
15.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–18.
16.
ClarkTom S.2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court-curbing and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 971–89.
17.
ClarkTom S.KastellecJonathan P.2015. “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research43:504–35.
18.
CliffordScottJewellRyan M.Waggoner.Philip D.2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics2 (4). doi:10.1177/2053168015622072.
19.
CohenGeoffrey L.2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85 (5): 808–22.
20.
ConversePhillip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E., 206–61. New York: Free Press.
21.
DilliplaneSusanna. 2014. “Activation, Conversion, or Reinforcement? The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 79–94.
22.
DolbeareKenneth M.HammondPhillip E.1968. “The Political Party Basis of Attitudes toward the Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly32 (1): 16–30.
23.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
24.
DurrRobert H.MartinAndrew D.WolbrechtChristina. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 768–76.
25.
EllisChristopherStimsonJames A.2012. Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GeysBennyVermeirJan. 2014. “Party Cues in Elections under Multilevel Governance: Theory and Evidence from U.S. States.” Journal of the European Economic Association12 (4): 1029–58.
27.
GibsonJames L.2007. “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4 (3): 507–38.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review45 (1): 195–219.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
31.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
32.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.Spence.Lester Kenyatta2003b. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–56.
33.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review48 (4): 837–66.
34.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2014. “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science10:201–19.
35.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2015a. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 162–74.
36.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2015b. “Too Liberal, Too Conservative, or about Right? The Implications of Ideological Satisfaction for Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Paper delivered at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September 3–5.
37.
GorenPaulFedericoChristopher M.KittilsonMiki Caul. 2009. “Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 805–20.
38.
GreenDonaldPalmquistBradleyShicklerEric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Partisan Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.
39.
HetheringtonMarc J.2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
HetheringtonMarc J.SmithJoseph L.2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (1): 40–66.
41.
HortonJohn J.RandDavid G.ZeckhauserRichard J.2011. “The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market.” Experimental Economics14 (3): 399–425.
42.
HuddyLeonieMasonLillianaAarøeLene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review109 (1): 1–17.
43.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.1987. News That Matters: Television and Public Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
44.
IyengarShantoSoodGauravLelkesYphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (3): 405–31.
45.
IyengarShantoValentinoNicholas A.2000. “Who Says What? Source Credibility as a Mediator of Campaign Advertising.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMatthew D.PopkinSamuel L., 108–29. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
47.
JacobyWilliam G.1995. “The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science39:314–35.
KamCindy D.2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior27 (2): 163–82.
50.
LenzGabriel S.2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 821–37.
51.
LenzGabriel S.2012. Follow the Leader: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology26 (3): 455–82.
54.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (2): 63–76.
55.
LuptonRobert N.MyersWilliam M.ThorntonJudd R.2015. “Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980-2004.” The Journal of Politics77 (2): 368–80.
56.
MalhotraNeilJesseeStephen A.2014. “Ideological Proximity and Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior36 (4): 817–46.
57.
MasonLilliana. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 128–45.
58.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59.
MunroGeoffrey D.WeihCarrieTsaiJeffrey. 2010. “Motivated Suspicion: Asymmetrical Attributions of the Behavior of Political Ingroup and Outgroup Members.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology32 (2): 173–84.
60.
NicholsonStephen P.2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence.” The Journal of Politics73 (4): 1165–77.
61.
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.
62.
NorpothHelmutLewis-BeckMichael S.LafayJean-Dominique. 1991. Economics and Politics: The Calculus of Support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
63.
RahnWendy M.1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science37:472–96.
64.
SalamoneMichael F.2014. “Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion: Conditional Response to Supreme Court Majority Size.” Political Research Quarterly67:320–34. doi:10.1177/1065912913497840.
65.
SimonsonMichael R.MaushakNancy. 1995. “Instructional Technology and Attitude Change.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, edited by JonassenDavid H., 984–1016. New York: MacMillan Library Reference.
SternthalBrianDholakiaRubyLeavittClark. 1978. “The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response.” Journal of Consumer Research4 (4): 252–60.
68.
SuhayElizabeth. 2015. “Explaining Group Influence: The Role of Identity and Emotion in Political Conformity and Polarization.” Political Behavior37 (1): 221–51.
69.
TeslerMichael. 2015. “Priming Predispositions and Changing Policy Positions: An Account of When Mass Opinion Is Primed or Changed.” American Journal of Political Science59 (4): 806–24.
TulisJeffrey K.1988. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
72.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57:375–400.
73.
UraJoseph Daniel. 2014. “Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 110–26.
74.
UraJoseph DanielWohlfarthPatrick C.2010. “An Appeal to the People: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 939–56.
75.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
ZimbardoPhilip G.LeippeMichael R.1991. The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
77.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.IIScottJohn T.2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–25.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
