Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T13:00:30.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Estimating Personality Traits of US Supreme Court Justices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Ryan C. Black ,
Ryan J. Owens ,
Justin Wedeking  and
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Ryan C. Black
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, USA
Ryan J. Owens
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, USA
Justin Wedeking
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, USA
Patrick C. Wohlfarth*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
*
Contact the corresponding author, Patrick C. Wohlfarth, at patrickw@umd.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychological scholarship on personality is uniting with political science to redefine existing theories. This is clearly the case with research on judicial behavior and the US Supreme Court. But if this new approach is to survive and thrive, it must employ measures equal to the task. We show that Supreme Court Individual Personality Estimates, which seek to estimate justices’ personalities by examining their concurring opinions, suffer from a number of important methodological deficits that critically limit their usefulness. We briefly discuss what kinds of improved personality measures scholars should use instead and offer an improved set of estimates for one trait with an application that demonstrates our cautionary tale.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Fall 2021 , pp. 371 - 396
Copyright
© 2021 Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnoux, P.-H., A. Xu, N. Boyette, J. Mahmud, R. Akkiraju, and V. Sinha. 2017. “25 Tweets to Know You: A New Model to Predict Personality with Social Media.” AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 472–75.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, M. A. 2013. “Is Today’s Court the Most Conservative in Sixty Years? Challenges and Opportunities in Measuring Judicial Preferences.” Journal of Politics 75 (3): 821–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., and R. J. Owens. 2009. “Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1062–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. C., R. J. Owens, J. Wedeking, and P. C. Wohlfarth. 2020. The Conscientious Justice: How Supreme Court Justices’ Personalities Influence the Law, the High Court, and the Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonica, A., A. S. Chilton, J. Goldin, K. Rozema, and S. Maya. 2017. “Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring.” American Law and Economics Review 19 (1): 129–61.Google Scholar
Braman, E. 2009. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Braman, E., and T. E. Nelson. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 940–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, G. A., and J. R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffin, F. M. 1994. On Appeal: Courts, Lawyering, and Judging. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Collins, P. M. 2011. “Cognitive Dissonance on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 362–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connelly, B. S., and D. S. Ones. 2010. “An Other Perspective on Personality: Meta-analytic Integration of Observers’ Accuracy and Predictive Validity.” Psychological Bulletin 136 (6): 1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, P. C. 2010. Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T Jr.., and R. R. McCrae. 1994. “Set Like Plaster? Evidence for the Stability of Adult Personality.” In Can Personality Change? 21–40. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, B. J., S. Lasley, J. J. Mondak, M. L. Remmel, and J. Turner. 2012. “Personality and Legislative Politics: The Big Five Trait Dimensions among U.S. State Legislators.” Political Psychology 33 (2): 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L., and J. Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, L. 2013. “Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 16:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L., W. M. Landes, and T. H. R. A. Posner. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., A. D. Martin, K. M. Quinn, and J. A. Segal. 2007. “Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (4): 1483–542.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., J. A. Segal, and H. J. Spaeth. 2007. “Digital Archive of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun.” http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/BlackmunArchive/.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., and B. W. Roberts. 2005. “Patterns of Continuity: A Dynamic Model for Conceptualizing the Stability of Individual Differences in Psychological Constructs across the Life Course.” Psychological Review 112 (1): 60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, M. E. 2018. What Justices Want: Goals and Personality on the US Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. E., G. E. Hollibaugh Jr., J. D. Klinger, and A. J. Ramey. 2021. “Attributes beyond Attitudes: Measuring Personality Traits on the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts 9 (2): 345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, D. E., and K. Quinn. 2010. “How Not to Lie with Judicial Votes: Misconceptions, Measurement, and Models.” California Law Review 98:813–76.Google Scholar
IBM. 2017. “The Science behind the Service.” IBM Watson Personality Insight Documentation.Google Scholar
Kern, M. L., J. C. Eichstaedt, H. A. Schwartz, L. Dziurzynski, L. H. Ungar, D. J. Stillwell, M. Kosinski, S. M. Ramones, and M. E. Seligman. 2014. “The Online Social Self: An Open Vocabulary Approach to Personality.” Assessment 21 (2): 158–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarus, E. 2005. Closed Chambers: the Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. Reissue ed. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D., and K. M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. D. 2005. “Can Ideal Point Estimates Be Used as Explanatory Variables?” Unpublished manuscript, Washington University of St. Louis. http://adm.wustl.edu/supct/resnote.pdf.Google Scholar
Moyer, L. 2012. “The Role of Case Complexity in Judicial Decision Making.” Law and Policy 34 (3): 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obschonka, M., N. Lee, A. Rodríguez-Pose, J. C. Eichstaedt, and T. Ebert. 2020. “Big Data Methods, Social Media, and the Psychology of Entrepreneurial Regions: Capturing Cross-County Personality Traits and Their Impact on Entrepreneurship in the USA.” Small Business Economics 55 (3): 567–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, R. J., and J. Wedeking. 2012. “Predicting Drift on Politically Insulated Institutions: A Study of Ideological Drift on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 74:487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, G., H. A. Schwartz, J. C. Eichstaedt, M. L. Kern, M. Kosinski, D. J. Stillwell, L. H. Ungar, and M. E. Seligman. 2015. “Automatic Personality Assessment through Social Media Language.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (6): 934–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, J. W., R. L. Boyd, K. Jordan, and K. Blackburn. 2015. “The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015.” Technical report. http://www.liwc.net.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., and L. A. King. 1999. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:1296–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramey, A. J., J. D. Klinger, and G. E. Hollibaugh Jr. 2017. More than a Feeling: Personality, Polarization, and the Transformation of the U.S. Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, L. K. 1990. “The Justices Write Separately: Uses of the Concurrence by the Rehnquist Court.” University of California Davis Law Review 23:777–831.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. A., J. C. Eichstaedt, M. L. Kern, L. Dziurzynski, S. M. Ramones, M. Agrawal, A. Shah, M. Kosinski, D. Stillwell, M. E. Seligman, and L. H. Ungar. 2013. “Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open Vocabulary Approach.” PLOS One 8 (9): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, J. A., and A. D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, J. A., L. Epstein, C. M. Cameron, and H. J. Spaeth. 1995. “Ideological Values and the Votes of Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” Journal of Politics 57 (3): 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, H. J., L. Epstein, T. Ruger, K. Whittington, J. A. Segal, and A. D. Martin. 2010. The Supreme Court Database. St. Louis, MO: Washington University in Saint Louis. http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php.Google Scholar
Witt, L., L. A. Burke, M. R. Barrick, and M. K. Mount. 2002. “The Interactive Effects of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on Job Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (1): 164–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, B., and S. Armstrong. 1979. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Zorn, C. 2006. “Comparing Gee and Robust Standard Errors for Conditionally Dependent Data.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Black et al supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 377.4 KB