The Sources Of Public Confidence In State Courts

Wenzel, James P.; Bowler, Shaun; Lanoue, David J.

doi:10.1177/1532673x02250295

Cited by 64 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clawson and Waltenburg (2003) find that the media framing of affirmative-action decisions influences support for the decision among both Blacks and Whites. Examining actual survey data on state courts, Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue (2003) find no support for the contention that the media have any effect on diffuse or specific support for community courts. A closer examination of this issue using methods with greater generalizability is thus essential.…”

Section: American Courts and The Mass Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few studies have focused on the link between coverage and attitudes within the context of the courts, however, and these studies have either been experimental (Baird and Gangl 2006;Clawson and Waltenburg 2003) or have only examined attitudes toward lower courts (Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue 2003), with conflicting results. In an experimental investigation, Baird and Gangl (2006) establish a causal link between the media framing of a Supreme Court decision in legalistic terms and perceptions of fairness in the decision-making process.…”

Section: American Courts and The Mass Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensationalism and Sobriety Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts

Johnston¹,

Bartels²

2010

Public Opinion Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a great deal of research has focused on understanding the foundations of public support for American courts, scant attention has been paid to the role of the media for such attitudes. Given the media's demonstrated ability to influence public opinion, this remains a substantial gap in the literature. In the present paper we examine how different types of media-sensationalist (i.e., political radio and cable news) or sober (i.e., newspapers and network news) -influence individuals' attitudes toward both the U.S. Supreme Court and courts at the state level. In line with our predictions, we find that sensationalist media exposure depresses both diffuse and specific support for American courts. Additionally, our results call into question the unconditional nature of the ubiquitous sophistication-approval relationship. We find that sophistication's positive effect on court attitudes is conditional on an individual's particular source of political information.Myth sustains mystique, which shelters an institution from the public eye…. But if the mask of myth falls, people can see more clearly what is going on. If an institution's involvement in raw political decision-making processes becomes visible, people may develop contempt for it. In contrast, invisibility and distance from the mass public sustain myth and thus legitimacy.

show abstract

Section: American Courts and The Mass Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: American Courts and The Mass Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensationalism and Sobriety Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts

Johnston¹,

Bartels²

2010

Public Opinion Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these studies, the most consistent finding is that public support is lowest among states with partisan elections (Benesh 2006;Cann and Yates 2008;Jamieson and Hardy 2008;Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue 2003). 2 Although these studies provide useful insight, they do not differentiate between states with differing levels of campaign and election activity.…”

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…9. Previous studies examining public support for state supreme courts have found support for an interaction between an indicator for partisan elections and education (Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue 2003) and interactions between political knowledge and indicators for nonpartisan and partisan elections (Cann et al 2008). The survey did not include a direct measure of political knowledge, but court awareness offers a good proxy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two of these studies include interactions qualifying the main finding that courts elected using partisan elections garner less public support. In Wenzel, Bowler, and Lanoue (2003), public support is only lower in partisan election states among those who have high levels of education. In Cann and Yates (2008), the decrease in public support associated with partisan elections is concentrated among those with low levels of political knowledge.…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions

Woodson

2017

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple indicators to differentiate between states with highly active election systems involving large amounts of campaign activity and states with less active elections systems that involve little campaign activity. The results from the survey show that the legitimacy of elected courts is higher than appointed courts but only in states with little election activity. In states with high amounts of election activity, the legitimacy of elected courts is lower than appointed courts.

show abstract

Exploring separable components of institutional confidence

Hamm

PytlikZillig

Tomkins

et al. 2011

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its contemporary and theoretical importance in numerous social scientific disciplines, institutional confidence research is limited by a lack of consensus regarding the distinctions and relationships among related constructs (e.g., trust, confidence, legitimacy, distrust, etc.). This study examined four confidence-related constructs that have been used in studies of trust/confidence in the courts: dispositional trust, trust in institutions, obligation to obey the law, and cynicism. First, the separability of the four constructs was examined by exploratory factor analyses. Relationships among the constructs were also assessed. Next, multiple regression analyses were used to explore each construct's independent contribution to confidence in the courts. Finally, a second study replicated the first study and also examined the stability of the institutional confidence constructs over time. Results supported the hypothesized separability of, and correlations among, the four confidence-related constructs. The extent to which the constructs independently explained the observed variance in confidence in the courts differed as a function of the specific operationalization of confidence in the courts and the individual predictor measures. Implications for measuring institutional confidence and future research directions are discussed.

show abstract

The Sources Of Public Confidence In State Courts

Cited by 64 publications

References 22 publications

Sensationalism and Sobriety Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts

Sensationalism and Sobriety Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts

The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions

Exploring separable components of institutional confidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About