In this study the author examines the extent to which the Supreme Court acts as an opinion leader through its ability to induce attitude change. The author employs an experimental design with liberal and conservative rulings on one economic and one civil liberties issue, comparing the influence of the Supreme Court, Congress, and a nonpartisan think tank as sources of policies. The design was chosen in an attempt to eliminate outside sources of influence and to determine better the Supreme Court's ability to cause change in opinion. The results demonstrate that under some circumstances the Court can indeed influence opinion in the direction of its rulings, especially for those who regard the Court positively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adamany, David.1973. Legitimacy, realigning elections, and the Supreme Court . Wisconsin Law Review3:790-846.
2.
Adamany, David, and Joel B. Grossman .1989. Support for the Supreme Court as a national policy maker. In American court systems: Readings in judicial process and behavior, edited by S. Goldman and A. Sarat, 201-16. New York: Longman.
3.
Baas, Larry R., and Dan Thomas.1984. The Supreme Court and policy legitimation: Experimental tests. American Politics Quarterly12:335-60.
4.
Caldeira, Gregory A.1986. Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review80:1209-26.
5.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson .1992. The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science36:635-64.
6.
Canon, Bradley C.1992. The Supreme Court as a cheerleader in politico-moral disputes . Journal of Politics54:637-53.
7.
Carmines, Edward G., and Richard Zeller.1979. Reliability and validity assessment . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
Casey, Gregory.1974. The Supreme Court and myth. Law and society8:385-419.
9.
Casper, Johnathon D.1989. The Supreme Court and national policy making. In American court systems: Readings in judicial process and behavior , edited by S. Goldman and A. Sarat, 599-614. New York: Longman.
10.
Dahl, Robert.1957. Decision-making in democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law6:279-95.
11.
Franklin, Charles, and Liane C. Kosaki .1989. Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion and abortion. American Political Science Review83:751-71.
12.
Gibson, James L.1989. Underpinnings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law and Society Review23:469-96.
13.
—. 1991. Freedom and tolerance in the United States. (Survey conducted by National Opinion Research Center, ChicagoAnn Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
14.
Hass, R. Glenn.1981. Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In Cognitive responses in persuasion, edited by Richard E. Petty, Thomas M. Ostrom, and Timothy C. Brock , 141-72. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Jaros, D., and R. Roper.1980. The U.S. Supreme Court: Myth, diffuse support, specific support, and legitimacy. American Politics Quarterly8:85-105.
16.
Marshall, Thomas R.1987. The Supreme Court as an opinion leader. American Politics Quarterly15:147-68.
17.
—. 1989. Public opinion and the Supreme Court. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
18.
Mondak, Jeffrey J.1990. Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior12:363-84.
19.
—. 1991. Substantive and procedural aspects of Supreme Court decisions as determinants of institutional approval. American Politics Quarterly19:174-88.
20.
—. 1992. Institutional legitimacy, policy legitimacy, and the Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly20:457-77.
21.
Muir, William K.1967. Law and attitude change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo .1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
23.
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.
24.
Rosenberg, Gerald N.1991. The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Sears, David O.1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influence of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology3:515-30.
26.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth .1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Tanenhaus, Joseph, and Walter F. Murphy .1981. Patterns of public support for the Supreme Court: A panel study. Journal of Politics43:24-39.
