Doctoral Dissertation Research on Heterogeneity in Supreme Court Decision-Making

这篇论文利用心理学框架开发了一种理论，具体说明了解释法官偏好-行为关系变化的机制--态度强度和责任感。重要的是，该理论定义了法律和战略考量的作用。与每个机制相关的案例级别和背景因素被假设为解释法官偏好对其选择的影响的差异。为了检验假设，该项目采用了分层或多层次的建模策略，并执行了三项分析。第一种分析将法官的公民自由投票视为两级等级--法官的选择嵌套在案件中--以检验假设的案件级因素是否解释了偏好影响的差异。在人员变动很少的情况下，对不同的自然法庭或时期估计不同的模型。第二个和第三个分析使用一个三级结构--法官的选择嵌套在嵌套在法院术语中的案件中--以确定战略因素(第二个分析)和法律和战略因素(第三个分析)，以及第一个分析中使用的案例级因素如何解释偏好-行为关系的差异。第二个分析考察了法官在较长时间跨度(1952-2000)内对正式判决的公民自由案件的投票情况。第三项分析考察了1973年至1998年大法官对言论自由案件的正式裁决投票情况。

This dissertation project develops a theory, using a psychological framework, specifying the mechanisms -- attitude strength and accountability -- that explain variation in the preference-behavior relationship for justices. Importantly, the theory defines a role for legal and strategic considerations. Case-level and contextual factors associated with each mechanism are hypothesized to explain variation in the impact of justices' preferences on their choices. To test the hypotheses, the project employs a hierarchical, or multilevel, modeling strategy and executes three analyses. The first analysis treats justices' civil liberties votes as a two-level hierarchy -- justices' choices nested within cases-to test whether the hypothesized case-level factors explain variation in the impact of preferences. Separate models are estimated for various natural courts or periods with little personnel change. The second and third analyses use a three-level structure -- justices' choices nested within cases nested within Court terms -- to determine how strategic (second analysis) and both legal and strategic factors (third analysis), in addition to the case-level factors used in the first analysis, explain variation in the preference-behavior relationship. The second analysis examines justices' votes on formally decided civil liberties cases for a longer time span (1952-2000). The third analysis examines justices' formally decided votes on free expression cases from 1973 to 1998.