The Multiple Hazards of Using Concurring Opinions to Estimate Personality Traits of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, Patrick C. Wohlfarth
{"title":"The Multiple Hazards of Using Concurring Opinions to Estimate Personality Traits of U.S. Supreme Court Justices","authors":"Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, Patrick C. Wohlfarth","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3362785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychological scholarship on personality is uniting with political science to redefine existing theories. This is clearly the case with research on judicial behavior and the U.S. Supreme Court. But if this new approach is to survive and thrive, it must employ measures equal to the task. We show how the Supreme Court Individual Personality Estimates (SCIPEs), which seek to estimate justices’ personalities by examining their concurring opinions, suffer from a number of critical deficits. Scholars should not employ them. We briefly discuss what kinds of improved personality measures scholars should use instead.","PeriodicalId":412430,"journal":{"name":"LSN: The Judiciary & Judicial Process (Topic)","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: The Judiciary & Judicial Process (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychological scholarship on personality is uniting with political science to redefine existing theories. This is clearly the case with research on judicial behavior and the U.S. Supreme Court. But if this new approach is to survive and thrive, it must employ measures equal to the task. We show how the Supreme Court Individual Personality Estimates (SCIPEs), which seek to estimate justices’ personalities by examining their concurring opinions, suffer from a number of critical deficits. Scholars should not employ them. We briefly discuss what kinds of improved personality measures scholars should use instead.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用一致意见来估计美国最高法院法官人格特征的多重危害
人格心理学正在与政治学联合起来,重新定义现有的理论。司法行为研究和美国最高法院的研究显然就是这样。但是,如果这种新方法要生存下去并蓬勃发展,它必须采取与任务相称的措施。我们展示了最高法院个人人格评估(SCIPEs)是如何通过审查法官的一致意见来评估他们的个性的,它存在许多关键缺陷。学者不应该雇用他们。我们简要地讨论了学者们应该使用什么样的改进人格测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Partial 'Global Peace': Federalism and the Long Tail of Remedies in Opioid Litigation Amicus Brief In Supreme Court Docket 19-930 (CIC Services v. IRS) On Anti-Injunction Act History and Application The Multiple Hazards of Using Concurring Opinions to Estimate Personality Traits of U.S. Supreme Court Justices The Complicated Business of State Supreme Court Elections: An Empirical Perspective The Mutation of International Law in Contemporary Constitutions: Thinking Sociologically About Political Constitutionalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1