Public opinion about the U.S. Supreme Court is heavily influenced by whether people perceive that the Court aligns with them ideologically. However, most Americans do not follow the Court closely enough to make informed inferences about their proximity to the Court. To explain this paradox, we theorize that when Americans perceive that they share a salient identity with the Supreme Court Justices, they attribute their own ideological orientation to the Court. Focusing on evangelical Christians, we find strong evidence for this theory. Survey analysis reveals that when evangelicals perceive that a majority of the Justices are evangelical Christians, they report less ideological distance from the Court, even though this does not affect their objective distance from the Court. To clarify the causal direction of this relationship, we conduct a conjoint experiment—showing that when evangelicals evaluate hypothetical nominees to the Court, they report that evangelical nominees are closer to them ideologically. By showing that the Court’s social imagery influences subjective ideological distance judgments, we help explain both the disconnect between subjective and objective proximity and the continued significance of subjective proximity judgments.
AchenChristopher H.2005. “Let’s Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong.” Conflict Management and Peace Science22 (4): 327–339.
2.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists. Princeton University Press.
3.
AhlerDouglas J.SoodGaurav. 2018. “The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions About Party Composition and Their Consequences.” Journal of Politics80 (3): 964–981.
4.
AmiraKaryn. 2018. “Do People Contrast and Assimilate Candidate Ideology? An Experimental Test of the Projection Hypothesis.” Journal of Experimental Political Science5: 195–205.
5.
ArmalyMiles T.KrewsonChristopher N.LaneElizabeth A.. 2024. “The Influence of Descriptive Representation on Support for Judicial Nominees and the US Supreme Court.” Political Behavior1–27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-024-09966-2.
6.
BadasAlex. 2016. “The Public’s Motivated Response to Supreme Court Decision-Making.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 318–330.
7.
BadasAlex. 2019a. “The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy.” Social Science Quarterly100 (5): 1848.
8.
BadasAlex. 2019b. “Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court Packing Plan.” The Journal of Legal Studies42 (2): 377–408.
9.
BadasAlex. 2022. “Motivated Reasoning and Attitudes Towards Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Evidence from Five Nominations and an Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly76 (2): 540.
10.
BadasAlexJustusBilly. 2023. “Millionaire Justices and Attitudes Towards the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior46 (3): 1985–2004.
11.
BadasAlexSchmidtEric R.. 2023. “Social Imagery and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from Evangelical Christians.” Political Research Quarertly77 (1): 137.
12.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn E.. 2018. “Someone Like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 127–142.
13.
BartelsL. M.1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton University Press.
14.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2012. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57: 184–199.
15.
BennettDanielStrotherLogan. 2024. “Religious Group Affect and Support for First Amendment Liberties.” The Forum21 (3): 359–383.
16.
BentleyArthur. 1908. The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures. University of Chicago Press.
17.
BerelsonBernard R.LazarsfeldPaul F.McPheeWilliam N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
18.
BradyH. E.SnidermanP. M.. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” The American Political Science Review79: 1061–1078.
19.
BullockJohn G.RaderKelly. 2022. “Response Options and the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” British Journal of Political Science52 (3): 1418–1427.
ConversePhilip E.2000. “Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates.” Annual Review of Political Science3: 331–353.
22.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.KeeterScott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press.
23.
DouglasBenjamin D.EwellPatrick J.BrauerMarkus. 2023. “Data Quality in Online Human-Subjects Research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.” Plos One18 (3): e0279720.
24.
GibsonJames L.2024a. “Do the Effects of Unpopular Supreme Court Rulings Linger? The Dobbs Decision Rescinding Abortion Rights.” American Political Science Review, 119: 1–8.
25.
GibsonJames L.2024b. “Losing Legitimacy: The Challenges of the Dobbs Ruling to Conventional Legitimacy Theory.” American Journal of Political Science68 (3): 1041.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmation: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton University Press.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester K.. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
28.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Social Review48 (4): 837–866.
29.
GibsonJames L.PereiraMiguel M.ZieglerJeffrey. 2017. “Updating Supreme Court Legitimacy: Testing the “Rule, Learn, Update” Model of Political Communication.” American Politics Research; fothcoming.
30.
GreenDonaldPalmquistBradleySchicklerEric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. Yale University Press.
31.
JesseeStephenMalhotraNeilSenMaya. 2022. “A Decade-Long Longitudinal Survey Shows that the Supreme Court is Now Much More Conservative Than the Public.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119 (24): e2120284119.
32.
JozkowskiKristen N.XianaBuenoTurnerRonna C.CrawfordBrandon L.LoWen-Juo. 2023. “People’s Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Abortion Laws Before and After the Dobbs v. Jackson Decision.” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters31 (1): 1–22.
33.
KinderDonald R.KamCindy. 2009. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. University of Chicago Press.
34.
KrewsonChristopherOwensRyan J. 2021. “Public Support for Judicial Philosophies: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts9: 89.
35.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2022. “How State Judicial Selection Methods May Influence Views of US Supreme Court Nominees: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Journal of Law and Courts10 (2): 189–212.
36.
KrewsonChristopher N.OwensRyan J.. 2024. “How the Intensity of Preference for Ideological Judges Influences Court Support.” Political Research Quarterly9 (1): 89.
37.
LaymanGeoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. Columbia University Press.
38.
LeegeD. C.WaldK. D.KruegerB. S.. 2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences: Social Change and Voter Mobilization Strategies in the Post-New Deal Period. Princeton University Press.
39.
LeeperThomas J.HoboltSaraTilleyJames. 2019. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis28 (2): 207.
40.
LermanAmy E.SadinMeredith L.. 2016. “Stereotyping or Projection? How White and Black Voters Estimate Black Candidates’ Ideology.” Political Psychology37: 147–163.
41.
LewisAndrew R.2018. The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics. Cambridge University Press.
42.
LockerbieBrad. 2013. “Race and Religion: Voting Behavior and Political Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly94 (4): 1145–1158.
43.
LodgeMilton S.TaberCharles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.
44.
MalhotraNeilJesseStephen A.. 2014. “Ideological Proximity and Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior36: 817–846.
45.
MasonLilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
46.
NelsonMichael J.GibsonJames L.. 2020. “Measuring Subjective Ideological Disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts8 (1): 75–94.
47.
PutnamRobert D.CampbellDavid E.. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. Simon and Schuster.
48.
SenMaya. 2016. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly70 (2): 374.
49.
SnidermanPaul M.StiglitzEdward J.. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton University Press.
50.
SnidermanPaul M.BrodyRichard A.TetlockPhilip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
51.
StaufferKatelyn E.2021. “Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy.” American Political Science Review115 (4): 1226–1241.
52.
StrotherLoganBennettDaniel. 2023. “Racial Group Affect and Support for Civil Liberties in the United States.” Politics, Groups, and Identities11 (2): 287–305.
53.
TrumanDavid B.1951. The Govermental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. Knopf.
54.
WagnerRegina L.ShaferByron E.. 2022. The Social Roots of American Politics: A Widening Gyre?Oxford University Press.
55.
WebsterSteven W.AbramowitzAlan I.. 2017. “The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate.” American Politics Research45 (4): 621–647.
56.
ZilisMichael A.2018. “Minority Groups and Judicial Legitimacy: Group Affect and the Incentives for Judicial Responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 270–283.
57.
ZilisMichael A.2021. “The Rights Paradox: How Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Science Quarterly137: 605–607.
58.
ZingherJoshua. 2022. Political Choice in a Polarized America. Oxford University Press.
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.
