Doctoral Dissertation Research on Heterogeneity in Supreme Court Decision-Making

本论文项目开发了一个理论，使用心理学框架，指定的机制-态度强度和问责制-解释的偏好行为关系的变化，为大法官。重要的是，该理论为法律的和战略考虑确定了一个角色。与每个机制相关的案例层面和背景因素被假设为解释大法官偏好对他们选择的影响的变化。为了验证假设，该项目采用了分层或多级建模策略，并执行了三项分析。第一个分析把大法官的公民自由投票看作是一个两级的层次结构大法官的选择嵌套在案件中，以测试假设的案件水平因素是否解释了偏好影响的变化。单独的模型估计为各种自然法院或时期很少的人员变化。第二次和第三次分析使用了三个层次的结构--法官的选择嵌套在最高法院条款中嵌套的案件中--来确定战略因素（第二次分析）以及法律的和战略因素（第三次分析），以及第一次分析中使用的案件层次因素，如何解释偏好-行为关系的变化。第二项分析考察了大法官在较长时间跨度（1952-2000年）内对正式决定的公民自由案件的投票。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决定投票。

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.