FROM SIMPLICITY TO COMPLEXITY: The Development of Theory in The Study of Judicial Behavior

TLDR: The authors assesses the development of theories of judicial behavior in the United States in the past few decades and 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.

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