Does groupthink affect court deference to the government in times of heightened security concerns? We argue that male judges serving in homogeneous panels in federal appellate courts modified their behavior post-9/11, but that the presence of a female on the panel mitigated these effects. Using data on the U.S. Court of Appeals from 1978 to 2008 in search-and-seizure cases, we argue that women can safeguard against groupthink effects that otherwise trend toward a more deferential, less rights-oriented approach in times of heightened security. Our findings suggest women mitigate their male colleagues’ shift toward more deferential decisions by affecting panel outcomes that are more consistent with peacetime decisions. These results suggest the important role women exert in collegial panels beyond direct voting patterns. In times of heightened security concerns, panel diversity can avoid groupthink that might stand in the judiciary’s way of providing an effective check on executive and legislative power.
AllenD. W.WallD. E. (1993). Role orientations and women state Supreme Court justices. Judicature, 77, 156-165.
2.
BanksC. P.TauberS. (2014). U.S. District Court decision-making in USA PATRIOT Act cases after September 11. Justice System Journal, 35, 139-161.
3.
BerinskyA. J. (2007). Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict. The Journal of Politics, 69, 975-997.
4.
BerinskyA. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BowieJ. B.SongerD. R.SzmerJ. (2014). The view from the bench and chambers: Examining judicial process and decision making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
6.
BoydC. L.EpsteinL.MartinA. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 389-411.
7.
BregerM. L. (2010). Making waves or keeping the calm: Analyzing the institutional culture of family courts through the lens of social psychology groupthink theory. Law & Psychology Review, 34, 55-90.
8.
BrooksG. R.GoodG. E. (2001). The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
BurkeP. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836-849.
10.
CalleroP. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 203-215.
11.
CarsonJ. L.JenkinsJ. A.RohdeD. W.SouvaM. A. (2001). The impact of national tides and district-level effects on electoral outcomes: The U.S. Congressional elections of 1862-63. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 887-898.
12.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.PaladinoM.-P.SacchiS. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135-143.
13.
ChuT. Q.SeeryM. D.EnceW. A.HolmanE. A.SilverR. (2006). Ethnicity and gender in the face of a terrorist attack: A national longitudinal study of immediate responses and outcomes two years after September 11. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 291-301.
14.
CiukD. J. (2016). Americans’ value preferences pre- and post-9/11. Social Science Quarterly, 97, 407-417.
15.
ClarkT. S. (2006). Judicial decision making during wartime. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3, 397-419.
16.
CollinsP. M.Jr.ManningK. L.CarpR. A. (2010). Gender, critical mass, and judicial decision making. Law & Policy, 32, 260-281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2010.00317.x
17.
CollinsP. M.Jr.NortonD. A.ManningK. L.CarpR. A. (2008). International conflicts and decision making on the federal district courts. Justice System Journal, 29, 121-144.
18.
ConnellR. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
CoxT. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
20.
DanelskiD. J. (1960). The influence of the chief justice in the decisional process. In PritchettC. H.MurphyW. F. (Eds.), Courts, judges, & politics (pp. 497-508). New York, NY: Random House.
21.
DevinsN.FederspielW. (2010). The Supreme Court, social psychology, and group formation. In KleinD. E.MitchellG. (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 85-100). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
DrahozalC. R. (1998). Judicial incentives and the appeals process. SMU Law Review, 51, 469-503.
23.
EdwardsH. T. (2003). The effects of collegiality on judicial decision making. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1639-1690.
24.
ElyR. J.ThomasD. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229-273.
25.
EpsteinL.HoD. E.KingG.SegalJ. A. (2005). The Supreme Court during crisis: How war affects only non-war cases. New York University Law Review, 80, 1-116.
26.
FarhangS.WawroG. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the U.S. court of appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 20, 299-330.
27.
FestingerL. (1968). Informal social communication. In CartwrightD.ZanderA. (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.; pp. 182-191). Oxford, UK: Row, Peterson.
28.
FischerA. R.TokarD. M.GoodG. E.SnellA. F. (1998). More on the structure of male role norms: Exploratory and multiple sample confirmatory analyses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 135-155.
29.
ForsythD. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
30.
GaitherS. E.ApfelbaumE. P.BirnbaumH. J.BabbittL. G.SommersS. R. (2018). Mere membership in racially diverse groups reduces conformity. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 9, 402-410.
31.
GelpiC.FeaverP. D.ReiflerJ. (2009). Paying the human costs of war: American public opinion and casualties in military conflicts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
GilesM. W.HettingerV. A.PeppersT. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 623-641.
33.
GillR. D.KaganM.MaroufF. (2019). The impact of maleness on judicial decision making: Masculinity, chivalry, and immigration appeals. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7, 509-528. doi:10.1080/21565503.2017.1386572
34.
GrossmanJ. B. (1968). Dissenting blocs on the Warren Court: A study in judicial role behavior. The Journal of Politics, 30, 1068-1090.
35.
GruenfeldD. H.HollingsheadA. B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task performance. Small Group Research, 24, 383-405.
36.
Hafner-BurtonE. M.HughesD. A.VictorD. G. (2013). The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 368-386.
37.
HallT. H.RossA. A. (2015). Affective politics after 9/11. International Organization, 69, 847-879.
38.
HarlowR.DundesL. (2004). “United” we stand: Responses to the September 11 attacks in Black and White. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 439-464.
39.
HetheringtonM.SuhayE. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the War on Terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 546-560.
40.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2003). Acclimation effects and separate opinion writing in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 792-810.
41.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2004). Comparing attitudinal and strategic accounts of dissenting behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 123-137.
42.
HettingerV. A.LindquistS. A.MartinekW. L. (2006). Judging on a collegial court: Influences on federal appellate decision making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
43.
HinkleR. K. (2015). Legal constraint in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 77, 721-735.
44.
HinkleR. K. (2016). Strategic Anticipation of En Banc Review in the US Courts of Appeals. Law & Society Review50(2), 383-414.
45.
HinkleR. K.NelsonM. J. (2018). The intergroup foundations of policy influence. Political Research Quarterly, 71, 729-742.
46.
HowellW. G.AhmedF. Z. (2014). Voting for the president: The Supreme Court during war. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 30, 39-71.
47.
HurwitzM. S.StefkoO. V. (2004). Acclimation and attitudes: “Newcomer” justices and precedent conformance on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 121-129.
48.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1-24.
49.
IssacharoffS.PildesR. H. (2004). Between civil libertarianism and executive unilateralism: An institutional process approach to rights during wartime. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 5(1), 1-45.
50.
JanisI. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
51.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
52.
JanisI. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: Free Press.
53.
JonasE.SchimelJ.GreenbergJ.PyszczynskiT. (2002). The Scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1342-1353.
54.
KarolD.MiguelE. (2007). The electoral cost of war: Iraq casualties and the 2004 U.S. presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 69, 633-648.
55.
KastellecJ. P. (2013). Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 167-183.
56.
KayF.GormanE. (2008). Women in the legal profession. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 299-332.
57.
KenneyS. J. (2008). Thinking about gender and judging. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 15, 87-110.
58.
KirkpatrickC. (1963). The family, as process and institution. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
59.
KleinD. E. (2002). Making law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
KuerstenA.ManningK. (2000). Women judges on the lower federal courts: Are they different from their brethren?Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.
61.
LevantR. F.RankinT. J.WilliamsC. M.HasanN. T.SmalleyK. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(1), 25-37.
62.
LevantR. F.RogersB. K.CruickshankB.RankinT. J.KurtzB. A.RummellC. M.ColbowA. J. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and construct validity of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent-revised (MRNI-Ar). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(4), 354.
63.
MaltzmanF.WahlbeckP. J. (1996). Mayit please the chief? Opinion assignments in the Rehnquist Court. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 421-443.
64.
MartinekW. L. (2010). Judges as members of small groups. In KleinD. E.MitchellG. (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 73-84). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65.
McCallM. (2008). Structuring gender’s impact: Judicial voting across criminal justice cases. American Politics Research, 36, 264-296.
66.
McCallM.McCallM. A. (2007). How far does the gender gap extend? Decision making on state Supreme Courts in Fourth Amendment Cases, 1980-2000. The Social Science Journal, 44, 67-82.
67.
McCrearyD. R.SaucierD. M.CourtenayW. H. (2005). The drive for muscularity and masculinity: Testing the associations among gender-role traits, behaviors, attitudes, and conflict. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 83-94.
68.
MoyerL. (2013). Rethinking critical mass in the federal appellate courts. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34, 49-71.
69.
MurphyW. F. (1966). Courts as small groups. Harvard Law Review, 79, 1565-1572.
70.
NincicM.NincicD. J. (2002). Race, gender, and war. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 547-568.
71.
PeresieJ. L. (2005). Female judges matter: Gender and collegial decisionmaking in the federal appellate courts. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 1759-1790.
72.
PetersonV. S. (1992). Transgressing boundaries: Theories of knowledge, gender and international relations. Millennium: The Journal of International Studies, 21, 183-206.
73.
RabinowitzF. E.CochranS. V. (2002). Deepening psychotherapy with men (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
74.
RandazzoK. A. (2011). Defenders of liberty or champions of security? Federal courts, the hierarchy of justice, and U.S. foreign policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
75.
RavivA.SadehA.RavivA.SilbersteinO.DiverO. (2000). Young Israelis’ reactions to national trauma: The Rabin assassination and terror attacks. Political Psychology, 21, 299-322.
76.
RehnquistW. H. (1998). All the laws but one: Civil liberties in wartime. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
77.
ReinhardtS. (2006). The judicial role in national security. Boston University Law Review, 86, 1309-1313.
78.
SaniF.HerreraM.BoweM. (2009). Perceived collective continuity and ingroup identification as defence against death awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 242-245.
79.
SchorppS.ReidR. (2017). The differential effect of war on liberal and conservative judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Journal of Law and Courts, 5(1), 1-31.
80.
SchubertG. (1964). The power of organized minorities in a small group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 133-153.
81.
SimonR. W. (1992). Parental role strains, salience of parental identity and gender differences in psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(1), 25-35.
82.
SingerJ. D. (1972). The “Correlates of War” project: Interim report and rationale. World Politics: A Quarterly Journal of International Relations, 24, 243-270.
83.
SmithC. M.TindaleR. S.SteinerL. (1998). Investment decisions by individuals and groups in “sunk cost” situations: The potential impact of shared representations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 175-189.
84.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597-612.
85.
SongerD. R.Crews-MeyerK. A. (2000). Does judge gender matter? Decision making in state supreme courts. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 750-762.
86.
SongerD. R.DavisS.HaireS. (1994). A reappraisal of diversification in the federal courts: Gender effects in the Courts of Appeals. The Journal of Politics, 56, 425-439.
87.
StangorC. (2004). Social groups in action and interaction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
88.
SunsteinC. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
89.
SunsteinC. R. (2008). Judging national security post-9/11: An empirical investigation. The Supreme Court Review, 2008, 269-291.
SunsteinC. R.SchkadeD.EllmanL. M.SawickiA. (2006). Are judges political? An empirical analysis of the federal judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
92.
SwannW. B.Jr.KwanV. S.PolzerJ. T.MiltonL. P. (2003). Fostering group identification and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1396-1406.
93.
TauberS.BanksC. (2017). The impact of the threat of terrorism on U.S. district court decisions during wartime. Terrorism and Political Violence, 29, 793-829.
94.
TindaleR. S.SmithC. M.ThomasL. S.FilkinsJ.SheffeyS. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In WitteE. H.DavisJ. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (pp. 89-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
95.
TurnerM. E.PratkanisA. R.ProbascoP.LeveC. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781-796.
96.
TurnerR. C.BreslinB. (2003, August28-31). The impact of female state chief judges on the administration of state judiciaries. American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
97.
UlmerS. S. (1971). Courts as small and not so small groups. New York, NY: Basic Books.
98.
VertzbergerY. Y. I. (1997). The antinomies of collective political trauma: A pre-theory. Political Psychology, 18, 863-876.
99.
WadsworthM. E.GudmundsenG. R.RavivT.AhlkvistJ. A.McIntoshD. N.KlineG. H.BurwellR. A. (2004). Coping with terrorism: Age and gender differences in effortful and involuntary responses to September 11th. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 143-157.
100.
WesterS. R. (2008). Male gender role conflict and multiculturalism: Implications for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 294-324.
101.
WoodS. L.KeithL. C.LanierD. N.OgundeleA. (1998). “Acclimation effects” for Supreme Court justices: A cross-validation, 1888-1940. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 690-697.
102.
YatesJ.WhitfordA. (1998). Presidential power and the United States Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 539-550.
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.
