Cognitive Dissonance on the U.s. Supreme Court
نویسندگان
چکیده
This research examines the applicability of cognitive dissonance theory to explain a judge’s decision to author or join a separate opinion. I propose that, following a counter-attitudinal vote, a judge will endeavor to reduce the aversive consequences of being viewed as an inconsistent decision maker by justifying his or her attitudinally incongruent vote choice to the public in a separate opinion. I test this possibility by examining U.S. Supreme Court justices’ decisions to author or join concurring and dissenting opinions during the 1946-2001 terms. The empirical results provide qualified support for the use of separate opinions as dissonance reduction mechanisms, suggesting that dissonance theory is both applicable to the actions of elite decision makers and enjoys validity outside of a laboratory setting. PAPER PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE 66 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MIDWEST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, APRIL 3-6, 2008
منابع مشابه
Why the Third Circuit Pro-Cooperative Federalism Preemption Holding in Bell Should Ultimately Be Adopted by the Supreme Court
In Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, holding that state common law tort actions were not preempted by the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The Third Circuit found that the savings clause of the CAA was nearly identical to that of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), ...
متن کاملCognitive Mapping of the Human Capital of the Auditors of Supreme Audit Court
The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the components of human capital and discovering the relationships between them for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court. Thus, after identifying the dimensions of human capital at the individual level, the components of human capital for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court were extracted using content analysis of semi-structured i...
متن کاملThe Diversity-Validity Dilemma: Implications from the Ricci v. DeStefano U.S. Supreme Court Case
One of the most critical problems that hospitality firms face in selecting employees is that the use of cognitive ability tests and other valid predictors of job performance lead to subgroup differences between majority and minority group members. The recent Ricci v. DeStefano U.S. Supreme Court case provides new implications for the adverse diversity-validity dilemma. This paper seeks to bridg...
متن کاملCost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish
This is the story of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case on the use of cost-benefit analysis at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a regulation issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case is Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. The case was not about the quality of the cost-benefit analysis, nor the fact that EPA conducted one, but whether EPA had CWA authority to base r...
متن کاملU.S. Supreme Court Decision Making in the Area of Religion, 1987-2011
There are many views on how human decision makers behave. In this work, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court will be viewed in terms of constrained maximization and cognitivecybernetic theory. This paper will integrate research in such fields as law, political science, psychology, economics and decision making theory. It will be argued that due to its heavy workload, the Supreme Cour...
متن کامل