How to Lose Cases and Influence People

Datos Bibliográficos

ID6170147
AutoresRachael K Hinkle (0000-0003-4324-0963, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, autor de correspondencia), Michael J Nelson (0000-0002-7665-7557, Pennsylvania State University)
Año2017
Volumen8
Número2
Páginas195-221
Fecha de publicación2017-12-20
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaStatistics Politics and Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2151-7509 • E-ISSN: 2194-6299
EditorialDe Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/spp-2017-0013
OpenAlexW2797239231
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas16

Dissenting opinions are common in the US Supreme Court even though they take time and effort, risk infuriating colleagues, and have no precedential value. In spite of these drawbacks, dissents can potentially contribute to future legal development. We theorize that dissenting justices who use more memorable language are more successful in achieving such long-term impact. To test this theory, we amass an original dataset of citations to dissenting opinions extracted directly from majority opinion text. We further leverage these texts to build an algorithm that quantifies the distinctiveness of dissenting language within a dynamic context. Our results indicate that dissents using more negative emotion and more distinctive words are cited more in future majority opinions. These results contribute to our understanding of how language can influence long-term policy development

Context (archaeology · Dissenting opinion · Leverage (statistics · Optimal distinctiveness theory · Political science · Public relations · Supreme court · Computer Science · History · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal Education and Practice Innovations · Psychology · Social Psychology