Skip to main content
Log in

From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article assesses the development of theories of judicial behavior in the United States in the past few decades. It is argued that the study of judicial behavior has been relatively balkanized, with some advances within particular theoretical contexts, but with little successful effort at integrating different approaches within a comprehensive theory. Although I develop no such comprehensive theory in this article, I do argue that the predominant frameworks for analyzing judicial behavior—attitude theory, fact pattern theory, role theory, small group theory, organization theory, and environmental theories—are not incompatible and can be at least partially integrated. In order to accomplish the desired integration, there are three desiderata:

  • The most general and useful unit of theoretical analysis is the individual decision maker.

  • Nonindividual level theories can and should be articulated to include propositions about the underlying microlevel processes.

  • Comprehensive theory can best be developed through models that incorporate influences stemming from various levels (e.g., group, institution, environment) but that ultimately focus on the individual.

Thus, theories of judicial behavior must become more complex if they are to achieve a higher level of explanation and prediction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamany, David W. (1969). “The Party Variable in Judges' Voting: Conceptual Notes and a Case Study.”American Political Science Review 63: 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamany, David W. (1973). “Legitimacy, Realigning Elections, and the Supreme Court.”Wisconsin Law Review 1973: 790–846.

  • Alpert, Lenore (1980). “The Socialization of State Trial Judges: Impact on Judicial Role Activity.” Paper delivered at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Alpert, Lenore (1981). “Learning About Trial Judging: The Socialization of State Trial Judges.” In James A. Cramer (ed.),Courts and Judges. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 105–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, Lenore (n.d.). “Unfrocking the Judges: Linkages Between Judicial Personality and On-Bench Performance.” Unpublished manuscript.

  • Alpert, Lenore, Burton M. Atkins, and Robert C. Ziller (1979). “Becoming a Judge: The Transition from Advocate to Arbiter.”Judicature 62: 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, Herbert B. (1973). “The Learning of Legislative Norms.”American Political Science Review 67: 499–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton M. (1970). “Some Theoretical Effects of the Decision-Making Rules on the United States Courts of Appeals.”Jurimetrics Journal 11: 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton M. (1972). “Decision Making Rules and Judicial Strategy on the United States Court of Appeals.”Western Political Quarterly 25: 626–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton M. (1974). “Opinion Assignment on the United States Court of Appeals: The Question of Issue Specialization.”Western Political Quarterly 27: 409–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton, Lenore Alpert, and Robert Ziller (1980). “Personality Theory and Judging: A Proposed Theory of Self Esteem and Judicial Policy-Making.”Law and Policy Quarterly 2: 189–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton, and Henry R. Glick (1976). “Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Law Resort.”American Journal of Political Science 20: 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton M., and Justin Green (1976). “Consensus on the United States Courts of Appeals: Illusion or Reality?”American Journal of Political Science 20: 735–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Burton M., and William Zavoina (1974). “Judicial Leadership on the Court of Appeals: A Probability Analysis of Panel Assignment in Race Relations Cases on the Fifth Circuit.”American Journal of Political Science, 18: 701–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, David N., and Dale A. Neuman (1970). “Judicial Attitude and Defendant Attributes: Some Consequences for Municipal Court Decision Making.”Journal of Public Law 19: 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, Robert F. (1950).Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, James D. (1965).The Lawmakers: Recruitment and Adaptation to Legislative Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Lawrence (1977). “Policy Goals in Judicial Gatekeeping: A Proximity Model of Discretionary Jurisdiction.”American Journal of Political Science 21: 13–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Theodore (1966). “A Survey Study of Hawaiian Judges: The Effect on Decisions of Judicial Role Variations.”American Political Science Review 60: 677–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Charles G., and Charles M. Price (1975).The First Term: A Study of Legislative Socialization. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, Daryl J., and David C. Funder (1978). “Predicting More of the People More of the Time: Assessing the Personality of Situations.”Psychological Review 85: 485–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., and George Speckart (1979). “Models of Attitude-Behavior Relations.”Psychological Review 86: 452–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, Marvin P. (1974). “Role Orientations of State Judges.”Research Report No. 2, Department of Political Science, Washington State University.

  • Biddle, Bruce J., and Edwin J. Thomas (eds.) (1966).Role Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, Hubert M., Jr., and Paul H. Wilken (1979).Intergroup Processes: A Micro-Macro Perspective. Riverside, N.J.: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Saul (1979). “The New Certiorari Game.”Journal of Politics 41: 649–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, Greg A. (1977). “Judicial Incentives: Some Evidence From Urban Trial Courts.”Iustitia 4: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, Greg A., and John T. Wold (1978). “Routine Decision-Making in Five California Courts of Appeal.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association.

  • Campbell, Donald T. (1963). “Social Attitudes and Other Acquired Behavioral Dispositions.” In Sigmund Koch (ed.),Psychology: A Study of a Science. Study II. Empirical Substructure and Relations with Other Sciences. Vol. 6. Investigations of Man as Socius: Their Place in Psychology and the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 94–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canon, Bradley C. (1982). “A Framework for the Analysis of Judicial Activism.” In Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb (eds.),Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, pp. 385–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canon, Bradley C., and S. Sidney Ulmer (1976). “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections: A Dissent.”American Political Science Review 70: 1215–1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carp, Robert, and Russell Wheeler (1972). “Sink or Swim: The Socialization of a Federal District Judge.”Journal of the Public Law 21: 359–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, Jonathan D. (1976). “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.”American Political Science Review 70: 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castberg, A. Didrick (1971). “The Ethnic Factor in Criminal Sentencing.”Western Political Quarterly 24: 425–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiricos, Theodore G., and Gordon P. Waldo (1975). “Socioeconomic Status and Criminal Sentencing: An Empirical Assessment of a Conflict Proposition.”American Sociological Review 40: 753-

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Stevens H., and Gary G. Koch (1976). “The Influence of Income and Other Factors on Whether Criminal Defendants Go to Prison.”Law and Society Review 11: 57–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, Aage R. (1977). “The Accuracy of Leader Perceptions of Constituency Views.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 361–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clynch, Edward J., and David W. Neubauer (1981). “Trial Courts as Organizations: A Critique and Synthesis.”Law and Policy Quarterly 3: 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1971). “The Socialization of New Federal Judges: Impact on District Court Business.”Washington University Law Quarterly 1971: 253–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1972). “Role Lag in Urban Trial Courts.”Western Political Quarterly 25: 234–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1973). “Sentencing Behavior of Federal Judges: Draft Cases—1972.”University of Cincinnati Law Review 42: 597–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1977). “Public Opinion and Federal Judicial Policy.”American Journal of Political Science 21: 567–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1979). “Judicial Policy: Change Over Time.”American Journal of Political Science 23: 208–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1980a). “Political Culture and Selection of Women Judges in Trial Courts.” In Debra W. Stewart (ed.),Women in Local Politics. London: The Scarecrow Press, pp. 42–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1980b). “Women Judges and Public Policy on Sex Integration.” In Debra W. Stewart (ed.),Women in Local Politics. London: The Scarecrow Press, pp. 130–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1982). “The Personality and Procreative Behavior of Trial Judges: A Biocultural Perspective.”International Political Science Review 3: 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, Clyde H. (1964).A Theory of Data. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. (1957). “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.”Journal of Public Law 6:279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1960). “The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. (Reprinted in abridged form as Chapter 42, in Goldman and Sarat, 1978.)

  • Danelski, David J. (1966). “Values as Variables in Judicial Decision-Making: Notes Toward a Theory.”Vanderbilt Law Review 19: 721–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1969). “The Supreme Court of Japan: An Exploratory Study.” In Glendon Schubert and David J. Danelski (eds.),Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision-Making in the East and West. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1970). “Legislative and Judicial Decision-Making: The Case of Harold H. Burton.” In S. Sidney Ulmer (ed.),Political Decision-Making, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, pp. 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Andrew R., and James J. Jaccard (1979). “Variables That Moderate the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Results of a Longitudinal Survey.”Psychological Review 86: 1364–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolbeare, Kenneth M. (1967).Trial Courts in Urban Politics: State Court Policy Impact and Functions in a Local Political System. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducat, Craig R., and Victor E. Flango (1977). “Toward an Integration of Public Law and Judicial Behavior.”Journal of Politics 39: 41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, Ebbe B., and Vladimir J. Konecni (1975). “Decision Making and Information Integration in the Courts: The Setting of Bail.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 805–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, James and Herbert Jacob (1977).Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flango, Victor E., Lettie McSpadden Wenner, and Manfred W. Wenner (1975). “The Concept of Judicial Role: A Methodological Note.”American Journal of Political Science 19: 277–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Jerome (1930).Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Coward McCann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Jerome (1949).Courts on Trial. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Lawrence M., and Robert Percival (1976). “A Tale of Two Courts: Litigation in Alameda and San Benito Counties.”Law and Society Review 10: 267–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funston, Richard (1975). “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections.”American Political Science Review 69: 795–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, Marc, Frank S. Palen, and John M. Thomas (1979). “The Crusading Judge: Judicial Activism in Trial Courts.”Southern California Law Review 52: 699–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galie, Peter J. (1982). “The Other Supreme Courts: Judicial Activism Among State Supreme Courts.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

  • Gibson, James L. (1977). “Discriminant Functions, Role Orientations and Judicial Behavior: Theoretical and Methodological Linkages.”Journal of Politics 39: 984–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1978a). “Decision Making Across Institutions: Legislators and Lower Court Judges in California.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

  • Gibson, James L. (1978b). “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model.”American Political Science Review 72: 911–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1978c). “Race as a Determinant of Criminal Sentences: A Methodological Critique and a Case Study.”Law and Society Review 12: 455–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1979). “A Role Theoretic Model of Criminal Court Decisionmaking.” In Peter F. Nardulli (ed.),The Study of Criminal Courts: Political Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, pp. 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1980). “Environmental Constraints on the Behavior of Judges: A Representational Model of Judicial Decision Making.”Law and Society Review 14: 343–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1981a). “Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self Esteem on Judicial Decision Making”Journal of Politics 43: 104–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1981b). “The Role Concept in Judicial Research.”Law and Policy Quarterly 3: 291–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1982). “Knowing One's Constituency: Processes Linking Judges to Their Districts.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association.

  • Glick, Henry R. (1971).Supreme Courts in State Politics: An Investigation of the Judicial Role. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Henry R., and Kenneth N. Vines (1969). “Law-Making in the State Judiciary: A Comparative Study of the Judicial Role in Four States.”Polity 2: 142–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Henry R., and Kenneth N. Vines (1973).State Court Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1966). “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–1964.”American Political Science Review 60: 374–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1968). “Conflict and Consensus in the United States Courts of Appeals.”Wisconsin Law Review 1968: 461–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1973). “Conflict on the U.S. Courts of Appeals 1965–1971: A Quantitative Analysis.”University of Cincinnati Law Review 42: 635–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1975). “Voting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals Revisited.”American Political Science Review 69: 491–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1979a). “The Effect of Past Judicial Behavior on Subsequent Decision-Making.”Jurimetrics Journal 19: 208–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1979b). “Should There Be Affirmative Action for the Judiciary?”Judicature 62: 488–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon, and Thomas P. Jahnige (1968).The Federal Judicial System: Readings in Process and Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon, and Austin Sarat (1978).American Court Systems: Readings in Judicial Process and Behavior. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow, David John (1979). “Scale Fitting in the Psychometric Model of Judicial Decision Making.”American Political Science Review 73: 430–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander McEachern (1958).Explanations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Joel B. (1962). “Role Playing and the Analysis of Judicial Behavior: The Case of Mr. Justice Frankfurter.”Journal of Public Law 11: 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Joel B. (1967). “Social Backgrounds and Judicial Decisions: Notes for a Theory.”Journal of Politics 29: 334–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Joel B. (1968). “Dissenting Blocs on the Warren Court: A Study in Judicial Role Behavior.”Journal of Politics 30: 1068–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruhl, John, Cassia Spohn, and Susan Welch (1981). “Women as Policymakers: The Case of Trial Judges.”American Journal of Political Science 25: 308–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, John (1974). “Extra-Legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing: An Assessment of a Sociological Viewpoint.”Law and Society Review 8: 357–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, Charles C. (1922). “General Observations on the Effects of Personal, Political, and Economic Influences in the Decision of Judges.”Illinois Law Review 17: 96–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, Stephen C., and Charles M. Lamb (1982).Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handberg, Roger H. (1976). “Decision-Making in a Natural Court, 1916–1921.”American Politics Quarterly 4: 357–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebert, F. Ted, and Lelan E. McLemore (1973). “Character and Structure of Legislative Norms: Operationalizing the Norm Concept in the Legislative Setting.”American Journal of Political Science 17: 506–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, Thomas R. (1981). “Studying the Studies: Political Science Research on Judicial Politics, 1961–1980.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

  • Heumann, Milton (1978).Plea Bargaining. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, H. N. (1981).The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, John (1971).Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1968). “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice.”American Political Science Review 62: 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1971). “Judicial Biography and the Behavioral Persuasion”American Political Science Review 65: 704–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1973). “Litigation Flow in Three United States Courts of Appeals.”Law and Society Review 8: 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1977). “Role Perceptions and Behavior in Three U.S. Courts of Appeals.”Journal of Politics 39: 916–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1981).Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitt, Ralph (1961). “The Outsider in the Senate: An Alternative Role.”American Political Science Review 55: 566–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ish, Joel S. (1975). “Trial Judges: Their Recruitment, Backgrounds, and Role Perceptions.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

  • Jahnige, Thomas P., and Sheldon Goldman (1968).The Federal Judicial System: Readings in Process and Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Dorothy B. (1968). “Role Theory and the Supreme Court.”Journal of Politics 30: 160–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, Dean, and Robert Mendelsohn (1967). “The Judicial Role and Sentencing Behavior.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 11: 471–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi (1981).Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Charles A. (1981). “Stare Decisis and Precedents: Using Citations to Explore Judicial Behavior and Policy Making.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.

  • Kirkpatrick, Samuel A., and Lelan McLemore (1977). “Perceptual and Affective Components of Legislative Norms: A Social-Psychological Analysis of Congruity.”Journal of Politics 39: 685–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, Fred (1963a). “Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions and Rules of Law.” In Glendon Schubert (ed.),Judicial Decision-Making. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 133–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, Fred (1963b). “Simultaneous Equations and Boolean Algebra in the Analysis of Judicial Decisions.”Law and Contemporary Problems 28: 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, Fred (1966). “Quantitative Analysis of Fact-Patterns in Cases and Their Impact on Judicial Decisions.”Harvard Law Review 79: 1595–1603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, Fred (1973). “Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis: An Application of R. A. Fisher's Theorem to Data in Political Science.”American Political Science Review 67: 555–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, Herbert M. (1978). “Political Correlates of the Behavior of Federal District Judges: A ‘Best Case’ Analysis.”Journal of Politics 40: 25–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, Herbert M. (1979). “Federal Judges and Their Political Environments: The Influence of Public Opinion.”American Journal of Political Science 23: 194–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, Herbert M., and Thomas M. Uhlman (1977). “Sisterhood in the Courtroom: Sex of Judge and Defendant in Criminal Case Disposition.”Social Science Journal 14: 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutschnitt, Candace (1980). “Social Status and Sentences of Female Offenders.”Law and Society Review 15: 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, James H., and John E. Stanga (1979). “Political Participation and Governmental Responsiveness: The Behavior of California Superior Courts.”American Political Science Review 73: 1090–1099.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPiere, Richard T. (1934). “Attitudes Versus Actions.”Social Forces 13: 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, Charles M. (1976). “Exploring the Conservatism of Federal Appeals Court Judges.”Indiana Law Journal 51: 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, Harold D. (1930).Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Viking Compass Edition, New York: The Viking Press, 1960.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, Harold D. (1948).Power and Personality. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Martin A. (1972). “Urban Politics and Judicial Behavior.”Journal of Legal Studies 1: 193–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Martin A. (1977).Urban Politics and the Criminal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Daniel J. (1959). “Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58: 170–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, Dan (1959). “Laymen to Lawmen: Law School, Careers, and Professional Socialization.”Harvard Educational Review 29: 352–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, Mary Lee (1976). “Determinants of Change in Judges' Decisions to Bind Over Defendants for Trial.” Paper delivered at the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Luttbeg, Norman R. (1981).Public Opinion and Public Policy: Models of Political Linkage.Third Edition. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, Walter G. (1972).Draft Offenders in the Federal Courts: A Search for the Social Correlates of Justice. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Matthews, Donald R., and James A. Stimson (1975).Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIver, John P. (1976). “Scaling Judicial Decisions: The Panel Decisionmaking Process of the U.S. Court of Appeals.”American Journal of Political Science 20: 749–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurray, Carl D., and Malcolm B. Parsons (1965). “Public Attitudes Toward the Representational Role of Legislators and Judges.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 9: 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Bruce A. (1982).The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Walter F. (1964).Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Walter F. (1966). “Courts as Small Groups.”Harvard Law Review 79: 1565–1572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1961). “Political Party Affiliation and Judges' Decisions.”American Political Science Review 55: 843–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1962a). “Ethnic Affiliations and Judicial Propensities.”Journal of Politics 24: 92–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1962b). “Testing Relations Between Judicial Characteristics and Judicial Decision Making.”Western Political Quarterly 15: 425–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1963). “Off-the-Bench Judicial Attitudes.” In Glendon Schubert (ed.),Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Free Press, pp. 29–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1969).The Legal Proess from a Behavioral Perspective. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, Peter F. (1978). “Organizational Analyses of Criminal Courts: An Overview and Some Speculation.” In Peter F. Nardulli (ed.),The Study of Criminal Courts: Political Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, pp. 101–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, Peter F. (1978).The Courtroom Elite: An Organizational Perspective on Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltason, Jack (1961).Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel (1967).The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, C. Herman (1941). “Division of Opinion Among Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939–1941.”American Political Science Review 35: 890–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, C. Herman (1948).The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, Doris Marie (1980).Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, Douglas E. (1974).Lawyers and Clients: Who's in Charge? New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, Austin (1977). “Judging in Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study.”Journal of Politics 39: 368–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, Austin, and Joel B. Grossman (1975). “Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems in the Mobilization of Adjudication.”American Political Science Review 69: 1200–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satter, Robert (1979). “The Quality of a Judge's Experience.”American Bar Association Journal 65: 933–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savoy, Paul (1970). “Toward a New Politics of Legal Education.”Yale Law Journal 79: 444–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John (1960).The Supreme Court: Its Politics, Personalities and Procedures. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John (1979).Judges and Justices: The Federal Appellate Judiciary. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1961). “A Psychometric Model of the Supreme Court.”American Behavioral Scientist 5: 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1962). “A Solution to the Indeterminate Factorial Resolution of Thurstone and Degan's Study of the Supreme Court.”Behavioral Science 7: 448–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1963). “Judicial Attitudes and Voting Behavior: The 1961 Term of the United States Supreme Court.”Law and Contemporary Problems 28: 100–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1965).The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1969). “Two Causal Models of Decision-Making by the High Court of Australia.” In Glendon Schubert and David J. Danelski (eds.),Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision-Making in East and West. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1974).The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1980). “Subcultural Effects on Judicial Behavior: A Comparative Analysis.”Journal of Politics 42: 951–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon (1982). “Subcultures and Judicial Background: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

  • Shapiro, Martin (1972). “Toward a Theory ofStare Decisis.”Journal of Legal Studies 1: 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. Brewster (1968). “A Map for the Analysis of Personality and Politics.”Journal of Social Issues 24: 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, Paul M. (1975).Personality and Democratic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, Donald R. (1979). “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.”Journal of Politics 41: 1185–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1961). “An Approach to the Study of Attitudinal Differences as an Aspect of Judicial Behavior.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 5: 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1962). “Judicial Power as a Variable Motivating Supreme Court Behavior.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 6: 54–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1963a). “An Analysis of Judicial Attitudes in the Labor Relations Decisions of the Warren Court.”Journal of Politics 25: 290–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1963b). “Warren Court Attitudes toward Business: The ‘B’ Scale.” In Glendon Schubert (ed.),Judicial Decision-Making. New York: Free Press, pp 79–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1964). “The Judicial Restraint of Mr. Justice Frankfurter: Myth or Reality?”Midwest Journal of Political Science 8: 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J., and David J. Peterson (1971). “The Analysis and Interpretation of Dimensionality: The Case of Civil Liberties and Decision Making.”American Journal of Political Science 15: 415–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, Cassia, John Gruhl, Susan Welch (1981–1982). “The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A Re-Examination of an Unsettled Question.”Law and Society Review 16: 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suffet, Frederic (1966). “Bail Setting: A Study of Courtroom Interaction.”Crime and Delinquency 12: 318–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, Joseph (1961). “Supreme Court Attitudes toward Federal Administrative Agencies 1947–1956—An Application of Social Science Methods to the Study of the Judicial Process.”Vanderbilt Law Review 14: 482–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, Joseph (1966). “The Cumulative Scaling of Judicial Decisions.”Harvard Law Review 79: 1583–1594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, Joseph, Marvin Schick, Matthew Muraskin, and Daniel Rosen (1963). “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Glendon Schubert (ed.),Judicial Decision-Making. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. Neal (1981). “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economic Decisions, 1946–1978.”American Political Science Review 75: 355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teger, Stuart H., and Douglas Kosinski (1980). “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.”Journal of Politics 42: 834–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, Louis, and J. W. Degan (1951). “A Factorial Study of the Supreme Court.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 37: 628–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlman, Thomas M. (1977). “The Impact of Defendant Race in Trial-Court Sanctioning Decisions.” In John A. Gardiner (ed.),Public Law and Public Policy. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlman, Thomas M. (1978). “Black Elite Decision Making: The Case of Trial Judges.”American Journal of Political Science 22: 884–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1965). “Toward a Theory of Sub-Group Formation in the United States Supreme Court.”Journal of Politics 27: 133–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1969a). “The Dimensionality of Judicial Voting Behavior.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 13: 471–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1969b). “The Discriminant Function and a Theoretical Context for Its Use in Estimating the Votes of Judges.” In Joel B. Grossman and Joseph Tanenhaus (eds.),Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 335–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1970). “Dissent Behavior and the Social Background of Supreme Court Justices.”Journal of Politics 32: 580–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1971a).Courts as Small and Not So Small Groups. New York: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1971b). “Earl Warren and theBrown Decision.”Journal of Politics 33: 689–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1972). “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘On the Merits’.”Polity 4: 429–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1973a). “Social Background as an Indicator to the Votes of Supreme Court Justices in Criminal Cases: 1947–1956 Terms.”American Journal of Political Science 17: 622–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1973b). “Supreme Court Justices as Strict and Not-So-Strict Constructionists: Some Implications.”Law and Society Review 8: 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1974). “Dimensionality and Change in Judicial Behavior.” In James F. Herndon and Joseph L. Bernd (eds.),Mathematical Applications in Political Science—VII. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, pp. 40–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1978). “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.”American Political Science Review 72: 902–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1979). “Parabolic Support of Civil Liberty Claims: The Case of William O. Douglas.”Journal of Politics 41: 634–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1981a).Courts, Law, and Judicial Processes. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1981b). “The Supreme Court and ‘Jury Selection’ Facts.” In S. Sidney Ulmer (ed.),Courts, Law, and Judicial Processes, New York: The Free Press, pp. 330–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1982a). “The Homogeneity of Judge Made Law: Does the Supreme Court Care?” Unpublished manuscript.

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1982b). “Issue Fluidity in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Conceptual Analysis.” In Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb (eds.),Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, pp. 319–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney, William Hintze, and Louise Kirklosky (1972). “The Decision to Grant or Deny Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory.”Law and Society Review 6: 637–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungs, Thomas D., and Larry R. Baas (1972). “Judicial Role Perceptions: A Q Technique Study of Ohio Judges.”Law and Society Review 6: 343–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dunne, Jan M., Peter J. van Koppen, and Jan ten Kate (1981). “Personality Influences on Judicial Decision Making in the Netherlands.” Paper delivered at the Meeting of the Research Committee for Comparative Judicial Studies, Oxford, United Kingdom.

  • Vines, Kenneth N. (1964). “Federal District Judges and Race Relations Cases in the South.”Journal of Politics 26: 337–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vines, Kenneth N. (1969). “The Judicial Role in the American States: An Exploration.” In Joel Grossman and Joseph Tanenhaus (eds.),Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: Wiley, pp. 461–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volcansek, Mary L. (1977). “Extra-Judicial Roles: Perceptions of Texas District Judges.”Public Affairs Forum 6: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, John C. (1971). “Policy Demands and System Support.”British Journal of Political Science 1: 271–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, John C. et al. (1962).The Legislative System. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, James L. (1973). “Role Perception as a Linkage Between Urban Courts and the Local Political System: Are Trial Judges Reactionary?” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, La.

  • Walker, Thomas G. (1970).Judges in Concert: The Influence of the Group on Judicial Decision-Making. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky.

  • Walker, Thomas G. (1973). “Behavioral Tendencies in the Three-Judge District Court.”American Journal of Political Science 17: 407–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissberg, Robert (1978). “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.”American Political Science Review 72: 535–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wice, Paul B. (1981). “Judicial Socialization: The Philadelphia Experience.” In James A. Cramer (ed.),Courts and Judges. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 149–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicker, A. W. (1969). “Attitudes Versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects.”Journal of Social Issues 25:41–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, C., I. Gerver, and Abraham Blumberg (1961). “The Psychology of Judges.” In Hans Toch (ed.),Legal and Criminal Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, John T. (1974). “Political Orientations, Social Backgrounds, and Role Perceptions of State Supreme Court Judges.”Western Political Quarterly 27: 239–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, Robert C., William F. Stone, Robert M. Jackson, and Natalie J. Terbovic (1977). “Self-Other Orientations and Political Behavior.” In Margaret G. Hermann, with Thomas W. Milburn (eds.),Psychological Examination of Political Leaders. New York: Free Press, pp. 335–369.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gibson, J.L. From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Polit Behav 5, 7–49 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985

Keywords

Navigation