Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-28T15:38:09.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Credibility of Constitutional Experts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2022

Eileen Braman
Eileen Braman*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
*
Email: ebraman@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how citizens assess the credibility of constitutional experts on matters of government authority. Analyses of data from two similarly designed experiments, conducted with national samples, reveal that partisanship, race, and level of education are significant predictors of survey respondents’ willingness to extend credibility to constitutional experts. The compatibility of the views expressed by experts with respondents’ own policy views on issues that are the subject of proposed government action is also important. Evidence shows that this consistency is more important in the decision that experts are credible than in decisions that they are not credible, suggesting that esteem motives are relevant in the decision to credit experts who express views congenial to our own that are distinct from social-identity motives scholars have theorized to be important in partisan resistance to expertise. The implications of findings for holding government officials accountable to constitutional limits on government authority are considered.

Keywords

expertiseconstitutional lawmediamotivated reasoninggovernment powers
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 2023 , pp. 86 - 103
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

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

Anderson, Ashley A., Scheufele, Dietram A., Brossard, Dominique, and Corley, Elizabeth A.. 2012. “The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 24 (2): 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Joshua M., and Shaw, Daron. 2015. “Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1): 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, and Druckman, James N.. 2018. “Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21 (3): 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braman, Eileen. 2021. “Thinking About Government Authority: Constitutional Considerations and Political Context in Citizens’ Assessments of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Action,” American Journal of Political Science 65 (2):489–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 2007. “The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations.” American Psychologist 62 (8): 728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Keith J. 2010. All Judges Are Political Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Jason K., and Evans, Abigail T.. 2014. “Source credibility and persuasion: The role of message position in self-validation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (8): 1024–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, James N., and McGrath, Mary C.. 2019. “The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation.” Nature Climate Change 9 (2): 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauchat, Gordan. 2012. “Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77 (2): 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, Matthew J., Harris, Emily A., Bain, Paul G., and Fielding, Kelly S.. 2016. “Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change.” Nature Climate Change 6 (6): 622–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, Matthew J., and Fielding, Kelly S.. 2017. “Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science.” American Psychologist 72 (5): 459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovland, Carl I., Janis, Irving Lester, and Kelley, Harold H.. 1953. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Mark S., and Lanier, Drew Nobel. 2008. “Diversity in state and federal appellate courts: Change and continuity across 20 years.” Justice System Journal 29 (1): 47–70.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D., and Ballard, Andrew O.. 2016. “Economists and public opinion: Expert consensus and economic policy judgments.” The Journal of Politics 78 (2): 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolley, Daniel, and Douglas, Karen M.. 2017. “Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 47 (8): 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins‐Smith, Hank, and Braman, Donald. 2011. “Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.” Journal of Risk Research 14 (2): 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Herma H. 1991. “The future of women law professors.” Iowa Law Review 77 (1991): 5.Google Scholar
Koehler, Derek J. 2016. “Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 22 (1): 24.Google ScholarPubMed
Kraft, Patrick W., Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2015. “Why people “don’t trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1): 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The case for motivated reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, and Lepper, Mark R.. 1979. “Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkley, Eric. 2020a. “Are experts (news) worthy? Balance, conflict, and mass media coverage of expert consensus.” Political Communication 37 (4): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkley, Eric. 2020b. “Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (1): 24–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milosh, Maria, Painter, Marcus, Van Dijcke, David, and Wright, Austin L.. 2020. Unmasking Partisanship: How Polarization Influences Public Responses to Collective Risk. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tom, Nichols. 2017. The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, Erik C., Kathryn, E.Cooper, and Kelly Garrett, R.. 2015. “The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science“. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658(1): 36–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T.. 1986. “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.” In Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pornpitakpan, Chanthika. 2004. “The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Francis X., and Gromet, Dena M.. 2015.“Red states, blue states, and brain states: Issue framing, partisanship, and the future of neurolaw in the United States.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1): 86–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Dan, and Scurich, Nicholas. 2011. “Lay judgments of judicial decision making.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (4): 709–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Dan, and Scurich, Nicholas. 2013. “The effect of legal expert commentary on lay judgments of judicial decision making.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10 (4): 797–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suhay, Elizabeth. 2017. “The politics of scientific knowledge.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, ed. Nussbaum, Jon. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Suhay, Elizabeth, and Druckman, James N.. 2015. “The politics of science: Political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1): 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2021. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Jack L. Jr. 1968. “Factors of source credibility.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 54 (1) 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Braman et al. supplementary material

Braman et al. supplementary material

Download Braman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.5 KB