Suchergebnisse

AbstractObjectiveWe study what happens to individuals' perceptions of the Supreme Court when they learn that public approval is high or low for the Court. We are interested in observing whether awareness of low(high) popular support for the Court can lead to further decreases(increases) in individual evaluations of the Court.MethodsWe construct a survey experiment with six conditions, including a control. Each condition displays a news headline individuals might encounter while scrolling the news or on social media, with varying levels of Supreme Court approval ratings. The conditions vary from 80 percent to less than 10 percent. After exposure to information about the Court's popularity, we ask participants about their specific and diffuse support of the Supreme Court.ResultsWe find that when a respondent is confronted with news that the Supreme Court's approval has risen or declined, their evaluations also increase or decrease. In addition, we find that diffuse support does not meaningfully change when reading headlines related to the Court's popular approval.ConclusionOur findings add to existing research regarding what can alter the important measure of Supreme Court‐specific support and affirm the difficulty in moving diffuse support.

Abstract
Approval of the Supreme Court recently hit its lowest point in decades. Calls for reforming the Court have gained traction as a result. In this study, we look at how media framing can influence public support for two specific reforms: Court packing and term limits. In a survey experiment, we provide respondents with either a pro-, anti-, or mixed-valence framed message about one of these two reforms. We find support for the proposition that media messages have the power to decrease support for reform but not to increase support for reform. Additionally, we theorize that highlighting the conflict surrounding the Court activates ideological considerations individuals hold toward the Court. In support of this theory, we find that discussing either Court packing or term limits decreases specific support of the high Court among Democrats and increases specific support among Republicans across all conditions.

Little is known about how the public responds to presidential statements on Supreme Court decisions. We argue that the president can serve as a source cue for both supporters and nonsupporters, shaping their opinions about the Supreme Court. This study offers a novel experimental test of presidential impact on individual assessments of the Court and potential sanctions. Our results suggest that individuals who approve of the president are likely to adjust their opinions to reflect the executive's stated position on Supreme Court decisions. However, those who do not support the president will react in a directionally opposed manner. Still, under the right conditions, our study suggests that a strategic president can take advantage of his ability to go public about the judicial branch.

ABSTRACTTeaching undergraduate students, mentoring graduate students, and generating publishable research are distinct tasks for many political scientists. This article highlights lessons for merging these activities through experiences from an initiative that sparked a series of collaborative-research projects focused on opinions about crime and punishment in the United States. This article describes three collaborative projects conducted between 2015 and 2017 to demonstrate how to merge undergraduate teaching, graduate training, and producing research. By participating in these projects, students learned about social-scientific research through hands-on experiences designing experiments, collecting and analyzing original data, and reporting empirical findings to a public audience. This approach is an effective way to engage students and generate research that can advance professional goals.