| Title |
Do a Law’s Policy Implications Affect Beliefs About Its Constitutionality? An Experimental Test
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Law and Human Behavior, January 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10979-007-9102-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua R. Furgeson, Linda Babcock, Peter M. Shane |
| Abstract |
Although a substantial empirical literature has found associations between judges' political orientation and their judicial decisions, the nature of the relationship between policy preferences and constitutional reasoning remains unclear. In this experimental study, law students were asked to determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical law, where the policy implications of the law were manipulated while holding all legal evidence constant. The data indicate that, even with an incentive to select the ruling best supported by the legal evidence, liberal participants were more likely to overturn laws that decreased taxes than laws that increased taxes. The opposite pattern held for conservatives. The experimental manipulation significantly affected even those participants who believed their policy preferences had no influence on their constitutional decisions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 30% |
| Researcher | 4 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 55% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Law and Human Behavior
#708
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,395
of 168,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Law and Human Behavior
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.