Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423Keywords:
Power dynamics in the Supreme Court, Construal level Theory, political ideology, types of opinions, tenureAbstract
Power dynamics exist among the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Through the lens of construal level, the justices’ psychological distance can indicate power, which can ultimately affect the decision-making process on case deliberation. This research examines power dynamics arising from tenure, gender, and political ideology of the justices, and the type of opinion written, through language conveyed in written opinions. I find that tenure, gender and political ideology have some association with abstraction, certainty, positive affect and/or future orientation, suggesting that justices have predictable behavioral implications stemming from their power level. Results for the type of opinions show significance for the opposite prediction, with concurring and dissenting opinions exhibiting more abstract, certain and positive. Exploring power dynamics among the justices helps to unpack the decision-making process in the High Court.
References
Aerts, G., Smits, T., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2017). How online consumer reviews are influenced by the language and valence of prior reviews: A construal level perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.023
Al-Mosaiwi, M., & Johnstone, T. (2018). Linguistic markers of moderate and absolute natural language. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.004
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk‐taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a Limb: The Role of Context and Impression Management in Selling Gender-Equity Issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.199
Ballingrud, G. (2021). Ideology and Risk Focus: Conservatism and Opinion‐Writing in the U.S. Supreme Court. Social Science Quarterly, 102(1), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12885
Belkin, A., McElwee, S., & Feldman, A. (2019). Chief Justice John Roberts is Not a Moderate. Taking Back the Court Action Fund.
Bonica, A., & Sen, M. (2021). Estimating Judicial Ideology. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.1.97
Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebacker, J. W. (n.d.). The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22.
Cho, C. W. (1996). The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge and Make Decisions.
Chou, H.-Y., & Yeh, M.-H. (2018). Minor language variations in campaign advertisements: The effects of pronoun use and message orientation on voter responses. Electoral Studies, 51, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.10.006
Conklin, M. (2023). Increasing Ideological Discrimination in Law School Rankings: Measuring the Conservative Penalty and Liberal Bonus with Updated 2024 Rankings Data. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 16(2).
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Everyday Failures in Organizational Learning: Explaining the High Threshold for Speaking Up at Work.
Farnswarth, W. (2007). The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift. Nw. UL Rev., 101. 236
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances Feldman, A. (2024, April 1). Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across Ideological Lines [Blog]. Empirical SCOTUS. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/04/01/charting-the-justices-decisions-cutting-across-ideologicallines/
Feldman, A., & Gill, R. D. (2019). Power Dynamics in Supreme Court Oral Arguments: The Relationship between Gender and Justice-to-Justice Interruptions. Justice System Journal, 40(3), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1637309
Gleason, S. A., Jones, J. J., & McBean, J. R. (2019). The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S. Supreme Court: The Case of Male and Female Justices. American Politics Research, 47(3), 494–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18766466
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and Goal Pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076–1087.
Hagle, T. M. (1993). “Freshman Effects” for Supreme Court Justices. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111547
Houston, R., Li, S., & Johnson, T. R. (2021). Learning to Speak Up: Acclimation Effects and Supreme Court Oral Argument. Justice System Journal, 42(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881668
Hout, M. (2021). America’s Liberal Social Climate and Trends. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(4), 1009–1049. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab061
Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2011). Powerful postures versus powerful roles: Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior? Psychological science, 22(1), 95-102.
Hunt, C. V., Kim, A., Borgida, E., & Chaiken, S. (2010). Revisiting the self-interest versus values debate: The role of temporal perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1155–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.004
Jacobi, T., & Sag, M. (2009). Taking the Measure of Ideology: Empirically Measuring Supreme Court Cases. 98.
Jacobi, T., & Schweers, D. (2017). Justice, interrupted: The effect of gender, ideology, and seniority at Supreme Court oral arguments. Va. L. Rev., 103, 1379.
Johnson-Grey, K. M., Boghrati, R., Wakslak, C. J., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Measuring Abstract Mind-Sets Through Syntax: Automating the Linguistic Category Model. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 217–225.
Jones, J. M. (2023, August 2). Supreme Court Approval Holds at Record Low. https://news.gallup.com/poll/509234/supreme-court-approval-holds-record-low.aspx
Joshi, P. D., Wakslak, C. J., Appel, G., & Huang, L. (2020). Gender differences in communicative abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000177
Jost, J. T., & Sterling, J. (2020). The language of politics: Ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress. Social Influence, 15(2–4), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403
Kwon, O. (2014). Beyond affective valence: The effect of different emotions on cognitive processing and persuasion from a certainty-congruent approach. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/28310
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power Increases Social Distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611418679 237
Lindom, T., Gregory, C., & Johnson, T. R. (2017). Gender Dynamics and Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Mich. St.
L. Rev., 1033. Lewellyn, K. B., & Muller‐Kahle, M. I. (2012). CEO Power and Risk Taking: Evidence from the Subprime Lending Industry. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00903.x
Magee, J. C., Milliken, F. J., & Lurie, A. R. (2010). Power Differences in the Construal of a Crisis: The Immediate Aftermath of September 11, 2001. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 354–370.
McClelland, P. L., Barker, V. L., & Oh, W.-Y. (2012). CEO career horizon and tenure: Future performance implications under different contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1387–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.003
McCloy, R., Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Understanding cumulative risk. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903024784
McHaney, R., Tako, A., & Robinson, S. (2018). Using LIWC to choose simulation approaches: A feasibility study. Decision Support Systems, 111, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.04.002
Miller, J. S. (2021). “Justice X, dissenting”: A Citation-Network Approach to Mapping Judicial Ideology. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3811403
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Monaghan, H. P. (n.d.). Taking Supreme Court Opinions Seriously.
Nussbaum, S., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). Predicting the near and distant future. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.152
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin, 105(1), 51.
Romano, M., Cirillo, A., Mussolino, D., & Pennacchio, L. (2019). CEO career horizons and when to go public: The relationship between risk-taking, speed and CEO power. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-017-9398-0
Rubin, T. E., & Melone, A. P. (1988). Justice Antonin Scalia: A first year freshman effect? Judicature, 72.
Saad, L. (2022, January 17). U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391803
Seih, Y.-T., Beier, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2017). Development and Examination of the Linguistic Category Model in a Computerized Text Analysis Method. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(3), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16657855
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558-568. 238
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813
Smith, P. K., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). The Nonconscious Nature of Power: Cues and Consequences: Nonconscious Nature of Power. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00300.x
Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578
Sønderlund, A. L., Morton, T. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2017). Multiple Group Membership and Well-Being: Is There Always Strength in Numbers? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01038
Statista Research Department. (2024, July 5). Martin-Quinn ideological scores of Supreme Court justices in the United States from 2005 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1323015/supreme-court-justicesideological-scores-us/Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (n.d.). Judgment Under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
Trumbull, G. (2012). Strength in numbers: The political power of weak interests. Harvard University Press.
Wakslak, C. J., Smith, P. K., & Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036626
Weary, G., & Jacobson, J. A. (1997). Causal uncertainty beliefs and diagnostic information seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.839
Wen, B., & Chang, E.-C. (2022). Will winning always encourage risk-taking? The effects of winning–losing perception on consumers’ risk preference. Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science, 5(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCMARS-08-2022-0022
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reyt, J.-N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. (2017). Construal Level Theory in Organizational Research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 367–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113115
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mykaela L. Chang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
