IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i1p281-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon Ballingrud

Abstract

Neuroscience proffers evidence that self‐described conservatives have stronger fear responses and aversion to risk than self‐described liberals. Combined with studies showing that judicial ideology drives the content of Supreme Court majority opinions, I argue that conservatism is linked to risk focus in Supreme Court majority opinions. I use the Language Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software on a sample of Supreme Court majority opinions, and find that conservative opinions score higher on the LIWC dimension called Risk Focus than liberal opinions. This effect is enhanced in criminal procedural cases. If conservative judges’ perceptions of risk are inflated, and if such perceptions are reflected in the binding opinions that they author, then such opinions’ heightened sense of risk may influence the perceptions of risk of lower‐court judges, which may in turn affect their decision‐making in such important areas as sentencing and convictions. Such a pattern raises important questions for the thousands of lower‐court decisions which impact the basic liberties of American citizens. Objective To determine whether judicial ideology affects the focus on risk of Supreme Court opinions. Methods Original, random sampling of 1200‐1300 Court opinions; use of LIWC software to analyze risk focus of each opinion; regression analysis of ideology on risk focus. Results As ideology becomes more conservative, the Court's opinions demonstrate increased evidence of focus on risk. This effect is pronounced in criminal procedure cases. Conclusion The theory is supported. Increasingly conservative Court opinions demonstrate an increased focus on risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon Ballingrud, 2021. "Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing In the U.S. Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 281-300, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:281-300
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12885
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12885?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max M. Schanzenbach & Emerson H. Tiller, 2007. "Strategic Judging Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Positive Political Theory and Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 24-56, April.
    2. Cameron, Charles M. & Segal, Jeffrey A. & Songer, Donald, 2000. "Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 101-116, March.
    3. Tom S. Clark & Benjamin Lauderdale, 2010. "Locating Supreme Court Opinions in Doctrine Space," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 871-890, October.
    4. Jeffrey A. Segal & Chad Westerland & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2011. "Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 89-104, January.
    5. Cliff Carrubba & Barry Friedman & Andrew D. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2012. "Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 400-412, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Goldin, Jacob & Rozema, Kyle & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring," Working Paper Series 16-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Margaret Oppenheimer & Helen LaVan & William Martin, 2015. "A Framework for Understanding Ethical and Efficiency Issues in Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Litigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 505-524, December.
    4. Tom S Clark, 2016. "Scope and precedent: judicial rule-making under uncertainty," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 353-384, July.
    5. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    7. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    8. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    10. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/4jcok93a4m9d1qtc3vnp4bdefk is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    12. Crane, Harry, 2017. "A hidden Markov model for latent temporal clustering with application to ideological alignment in the U.S. Supreme Court," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 19-36.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3sb2i4b2r694sqks71jbjihput is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2022. "When in Rome... On Local Norms and Sentencing Decisions," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 700-738.
    15. Thomas J. Miles, 2012. "Racial Disparities in Wiretap Applications before Federal Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 419-458.
    16. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2008. "Judicial Fact Discretion," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-35, January.
    18. Jeffrey R. Lax, 2003. "Certiorari and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 61-86, January.
    19. Crow, Matthew S. & Goulette, Natalie, 2022. "Judicial diversity and sentencing disparity across U.S. District Courts," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. Karakas, Leyla D., 2017. "Political rents under alternative forms of judicial review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 86-96.
    21. Ryan C. Black & James F. Spriggs, 2013. "The Citation and Depreciation of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 325-358, June.
    22. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2019. "When in Rome… on local norms and sentencing decisions," Sciences Po publications 88, Sciences Po.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:1:p:281-300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.