Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

The Changing American Voter.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00301.x

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited

We enter the debate over the role of sex in judging by addressing the two predominant empirical questions it raises: whether male and female judges decide cases distinctly (individual effects) and whether the presence of a female judge on a panel causes her male colleagues to behave differently (panel effects). We do not, however, rely exclusively on the predominant statistical models - variants of standard regression analysis - to address them. Because these tools alone are ill-suited to the task at hand, we deploy a more appropriate methodology - non-parametric matching - which follows from a formal framework for causal inference. Applying matching methods to sex discrimination suits resolved in the federal circuits between 1995 and 2002 yields two clear results. First, we observe substantial individual effects: The likelihood of a judge deciding in favor of the party alleging discrimination decreases by about 10 percentage points when the judge is a male. Likewise, we find that men are significantly more likely to rule in favor of the rights litigant when a woman serves on the panel. Both effects are so persistent and consistent that they may come as a surprise even to those scholars who have long posited the existence of gendered judging.

/pdf/untangling-the-causal-effects-of-sex-on-judging-2emg8qg0kp.pdf

Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging

The Limits of the Criminal Sanction

Tables and Figures Acknowledgments 1 Models of Judicial Behaviour and the Canadian Supreme Court 2 The Viability of the Attitudinal Model in the Canadian Context 3 Measuring Judicial Ideology 4 Attitudinal Conflict in Criminal Cases 5 Attitudinal Conflict in Civil Rights and Liberties Cases 6 Attitudinal Conflict in Economic Cases 7 Attitudinal Consistency in the Post-Charter Supreme Court 8 The Political and Social Implications of Post-Charter Judicial Behaviour Notes References Index

Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada

Abortion rates in the United States : the influence of opinion and policy

According to attitudinal theorists, justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decide cases largely on political preferences that fall within one dimension of ideology. The focus of this study is to test whether a unidimensional ideological model explains the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court justices (1992—1997). The factor-analytic results in three areas of law, two of which have never been examined in this way in Canada, provide substantial evidence of ideological voting. Yet unlike the U.S. justices of the Rehnquist court, Canadian justices exhibit a much higher degree of ideological complexity. These findings call into question the widely held assumption of unidimensional decision making that is in vogue in the U.S. literature today, and they suggest that attitudinal theorists and comparative scholars must be cognizant that multiple dimensions of attitudinal voting might occur in high courts that are not as ideologically polarized as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts

This article assesses whether the same attitudinal dimension that dominates judicial decision-making in the United States-liberalism/conservatism-is also prominent in the Canadian context. Specifically, the study examines the voting behavior of Canadian Supreme Court Justices in non-unanimous post-Charter cases decided during the first five terms of the Lamer Court (1991-95). After employing factor analysis, which disclosed three principal dimensions underlying the voting behavior of the justices, we closely examined the cases scoring most positively and most negatively on each of the factors. The principal dimensions underlying the Charter rulings suggest three prominent attitudinal conflicts dominate this Court period: communitarianism versus libertarianism, fair trial and criminal due process disputes, and judicial activism versus judicial self-restraint. These dimensions corroborate the findings of studies that have tracked the development of the Canadian Court in post-- Charter years. Few relationships have been as frequently investigated or reported at greater length in the empirical study of public law than that between political attitudes and judges' decisions. Scholars of judicial behavior have built an entire field of the political science discipline on the thoroughly familiar premises gleaned from the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1881, 1897) and other rule skeptics (Fisher, Horowitz, and Reed 1993). The central premise of this body of literature is that rules contained in precedents simply provide cover for the justices' own attitudes and values (Holmes 1897; Frank 1930; Pritchett 1941; Schubert 1974, 1965; Segal and Spaeth 1993, Chap. 2; Epstein and Knight 1998: 25). In essence, the attitudinal model now dominates public law research in the United States. The attitudinal model so prominent in the literature today can trace its origins to the seminal research of Glendon Schubert (1974, 1965). Schubert's application of psychometric scaling techniques uncovered multiple attitudinal dimensions at work on the U.S. Supreme Court (Schubert 1974, 1965). This groundbreaking work on the U.S. court inspired him to conduct further research on judicial behavior in Switzerland, Australia, and South Africa (Schubert 1969a, 1969b, 1977, 1980). Other researchers who followed in his footsteps also found that attitudinal conflicts were at the crux of the decision making process of courts throughout the world, including the Philippines (Samonte 1969; Flango and Schubert 1969; Tate 1995); Italy (DiFrederico and Guarnieir 1988); Japan (Dator 1969; Kawashima 1969; Danelski 1969); Australia (Blackshield 1972; Galligan and Slater 1995; Power 1995); and Canada (Fouts 1969; Peck 1967a, 1967b, 1969; Tate and Sittiwong 1989; Morton, Russell, and Withey 1991; Russell 1995; Epp 1996; Wetstein and Ostberg 1999). These studies confirm that the political nature of judicial decision-making is not endemic to any one culture. Although research has shown that attitudes and values clearly influence the decisionmaking process in a variety of national high courts, the question remains whether the voting patterns that demonstrate attitudinal conflict are structured in a similar fashion across those courts. In the Canadian context, Fouts found in the 1950s and 1960s that the "decisional philosophy" of the Canadian justices was "strikingly similar to that espoused in the U.S. Court a generation earlier" (Fouts 1969: 284). He and Sidney Peck (1969) found the same liberal-conservative ideological conflicts in the U.S. were at work in Canada as well. The methodology used by these scholars presumed that the cases they analyzed could be analyzed using the same liberal-conservative continua on civil liberties, economics, and criminal cases that Schubert and others had used in studying the United States Supreme Court. Our study begins from a different premise. We start from the assumption that there might be different attitudinal issues at work in the minds of Canadian judges than simply liberalism-conservatism. …

Attitudinal Dimensions of Supreme Court Decision Making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991-1995

While prior studies have applied schema theory to belief systems in the mass public, it has yet to be used to assess attitudes held by elites in society. This article uses schema theory to suggest that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada employ an information processing model when deciding search and seizure cases. Specifically, it implies that the justices have a schema, or an organized set of attitudes, that are triggered by the factual and legal circumstances in particular search and seizure cases. The belief that justices would use such a heuristic device makes sense, given that they are expected to resolve disputes in a quick and efficient manner as well as maintain consistency in the law. The study uses factor analysis to provide evidence that there is an underlying structure to the attitudes that Canadian justices use in these cases (1984–1994). It adds to the prior research in this area, because it moves schema theory beyond the study of mass belief systems, and it represents a unique way of assessing the judicial decision-making process of Canadian justices since the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3232930.pdf

Matthew E. Wetstein

Papers

Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada

Abortion rates in the United States : the influence of opinion and policy

Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conf lict A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts

Attitudinal Dimensions of Supreme Court Decision Making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991-1995

Dimensions of Attitudes Underlying Search and Seizure Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada