Eileen Braman
Biographic Data
| ID | 1492961 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Eileen Braman |
| GIVEN NAMES | Eileen |
| FAMILY NAME | Braman |
| SIGNATURE | BRAMAN E |
| AFFILIATIONS | Indiana University |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 10 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 80 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 10 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2006 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 4 |
High Courts, Endowments, and Support for Institutional Change: Evidence from Israel and the United States
Proposals to change the institutional features of national high courts have been on the agenda recently in the United States and Israel. Using insights about endowment effects and prospect theory from behavioral economics, we theorize about how citizens may think about benefits from high courts and how those views can influence their support for change to those institutions. Mindful of differences across these countries, we employ a comparative e…
Institutional Prospects: Exploring Perceptions of Past Benefits and Future Risks From Supreme Court Decisions and Support for Institutional Change
This study investigates support for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court using prospect theory. Risk domain is alternatively conceptualized as the perception of retrospective benefits and future risks posed by Supreme Court decision‐making. Two experiments explore how citizens think about gains and losses from Court outputs. Findings indicate that retrospective benefits are influenced by the relevant time frame respondents are asked to consider, pol…
Assessing the Credibility of Constitutional Experts
This study investigates how citizens assess the credibility of constitutional experts on matters of government authority. Analyses of data from two similarly designed experiments, conducted with national samples, reveal that partisanship, race, and level of education are significant predictors of survey respondents’ willingness to extend credibility to constitutional experts. The compatibility of the views expressed by experts with respondents’ o…
Thinking about Government Authority: Constitutional Rules and Political Context in Citizens’ Assessments of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Action
This study explores how citizens think about the appropriate exercise of authority across the branches of government. Three similarly designed experiments conducted on national samples reveal that what individuals are told about compliance with decision‐making rules matters across institutions, but so does the political context in which officials are acting. Participants’ policy preferences about the issues that are the subject of government acti…
These Estimable Courts: Understanding Public Perceptions of State Judicial Institutions and Legal Policy-Making
Utilizing nationally representative survey data from the 2010 and 2012 administrations of the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, Damon M. Cann and Jeff Yates cover a good deal of ground that law and courts scholars and students of state politics will find interesting. The authors outline in a competent and comprehensive manner the factors that go into assessments of state court legitimacy, how citizens perceive judicial decision making, …
Exploring Citizen Assessments of Unilateral Executive Authority
This study investigates the interaction between constitutional considerations and democratic context in evaluations of executive authority. An identical experiment is conducted using undergraduate and Mechanical Turk samples. A hypothetical article raising the question of executive power varies the (1) issue context, (2) expert assessment of constitutional authority, and (3) level of public support for proposed action. Measures of participants' i…
An Experimental Investigation of Causal Attributions for the Political Behavior of Muslim Candidates: Can a Muslim Represent you
American Muslim representation in elected office has lagged behind that of other groups of comparable size. Muslims now make up 2% of the total United States population and enjoy much larger concentrations in some urban areas. American Muslims are also disproportionately educated and enjoy a higher average socio-economic status than members of groups with similar numbers that have made strides in terms of political representation in our democracy…
Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes
This article examines the boundaries of motivated reasoning in legal decision making. We propose a model of attitudinal influence involving analogical perception. Attitudes influence judgments by affecting the perceived similarity between a target case and cases cited as precedent. Bias should be most apparent in judging similarity when cases are moderately similar on objective dimensions. We conducted two experiments: the first with undergraduat…
Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making
One hundred and fifteen law students were given a mock brief with identical legal arguments on both sides of a standing dispute in litigation involving restrictions on political expression of public employees. The content of the expression at issue (pro-choice versus pro-life) and the jurisdiction where the case was pending (with versus without controlling authority on the standing issue) were experimentally manipulated. Participants' policy view…
Congress and the Constitution
Congress and the Constitution. Edited by Neal Devins and Kieth E. Whittington. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. 320p. $84.95 cloth, $23.95 paper. For years, students of American government have been taught a highly compartmentalized version of our democratic system where legislative actors “make” law, actors in the executive branch “enforce” law, and judges in the judicial branch “interpret” law. Under this overly simplistic framework, th…
Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes
This article examines the boundaries of motivated reasoning in legal decision making. We propose a model of attitudinal influence involving analogical perception. Attitudes influence judgments by affecting the perceived similarity between a target case and cases cited as precedent. Bias should be most apparent in judging similarity when cases are moderately similar on objective dimensions. We conducted two experiments: the first with undergraduat…
Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making
One hundred and fifteen law students were given a mock brief with identical legal arguments on both sides of a standing dispute in litigation involving restrictions on political expression of public employees. The content of the expression at issue (pro-choice versus pro-life) and the jurisdiction where the case was pending (with versus without controlling authority on the standing issue) were experimentally manipulated. Participants' policy view…
An Experimental Investigation of Causal Attributions for the Political Behavior of Muslim Candidates: Can a Muslim Represent you
American Muslim representation in elected office has lagged behind that of other groups of comparable size. Muslims now make up 2% of the total United States population and enjoy much larger concentrations in some urban areas. American Muslims are also disproportionately educated and enjoy a higher average socio-economic status than members of groups with similar numbers that have made strides in terms of political representation in our democracy…
Exploring Citizen Assessments of Unilateral Executive Authority
This study investigates the interaction between constitutional considerations and democratic context in evaluations of executive authority. An identical experiment is conducted using undergraduate and Mechanical Turk samples. A hypothetical article raising the question of executive power varies the (1) issue context, (2) expert assessment of constitutional authority, and (3) level of public support for proposed action. Measures of participants' i…
Thinking about Government Authority: Constitutional Rules and Political Context in Citizens’ Assessments of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Action
This study explores how citizens think about the appropriate exercise of authority across the branches of government. Three similarly designed experiments conducted on national samples reveal that what individuals are told about compliance with decision‐making rules matters across institutions, but so does the political context in which officials are acting. Participants’ policy preferences about the issues that are the subject of government acti…
Institutional Prospects: Exploring Perceptions of Past Benefits and Future Risks From Supreme Court Decisions and Support for Institutional Change
This study investigates support for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court using prospect theory. Risk domain is alternatively conceptualized as the perception of retrospective benefits and future risks posed by Supreme Court decision‐making. Two experiments explore how citizens think about gains and losses from Court outputs. Findings indicate that retrospective benefits are influenced by the relevant time frame respondents are asked to consider, pol…
Assessing the Credibility of Constitutional Experts
This study investigates how citizens assess the credibility of constitutional experts on matters of government authority. Analyses of data from two similarly designed experiments, conducted with national samples, reveal that partisanship, race, and level of education are significant predictors of survey respondents’ willingness to extend credibility to constitutional experts. The compatibility of the views expressed by experts with respondents’ o…
Congress and the Constitution
Congress and the Constitution. Edited by Neal Devins and Kieth E. Whittington. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. 320p. $84.95 cloth, $23.95 paper. For years, students of American government have been taught a highly compartmentalized version of our democratic system where legislative actors “make” law, actors in the executive branch “enforce” law, and judges in the judicial branch “interpret” law. Under this overly simplistic framework, th…
High Courts, Endowments, and Support for Institutional Change: Evidence from Israel and the United States
Proposals to change the institutional features of national high courts have been on the agenda recently in the United States and Israel. Using insights about endowment effects and prospect theory from behavioral economics, we theorize about how citizens may think about benefits from high courts and how those views can influence their support for change to those institutions. Mindful of differences across these countries, we employ a comparative e…
Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making
One hundred and fifteen law students were given a mock brief with identical legal arguments on both sides of a standing dispute in litigation involving restrictions on political expression of public employees. The content of the expression at issue (pro-choice versus pro-life) and the jurisdiction where the case was pending (with versus without controlling authority on the standing issue) were experimentally manipulated. Participants' policy view…
Congress and the Constitution
Congress and the Constitution. Edited by Neal Devins and Kieth E. Whittington. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. 320p. $84.95 cloth, $23.95 paper. For years, students of American government have been taught a highly compartmentalized version of our democratic system where legislative actors “make” law, actors in the executive branch “enforce” law, and judges in the judicial branch “interpret” law. Under this overly simplistic framework, th…
Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes
This article examines the boundaries of motivated reasoning in legal decision making. We propose a model of attitudinal influence involving analogical perception. Attitudes influence judgments by affecting the perceived similarity between a target case and cases cited as precedent. Bias should be most apparent in judging similarity when cases are moderately similar on objective dimensions. We conducted two experiments: the first with undergraduat…
An Experimental Investigation of Causal Attributions for the Political Behavior of Muslim Candidates: Can a Muslim Represent you
American Muslim representation in elected office has lagged behind that of other groups of comparable size. Muslims now make up 2% of the total United States population and enjoy much larger concentrations in some urban areas. American Muslims are also disproportionately educated and enjoy a higher average socio-economic status than members of groups with similar numbers that have made strides in terms of political representation in our democracy…
Exploring Citizen Assessments of Unilateral Executive Authority
This study investigates the interaction between constitutional considerations and democratic context in evaluations of executive authority. An identical experiment is conducted using undergraduate and Mechanical Turk samples. A hypothetical article raising the question of executive power varies the (1) issue context, (2) expert assessment of constitutional authority, and (3) level of public support for proposed action. Measures of participants' i…
These Estimable Courts: Understanding Public Perceptions of State Judicial Institutions and Legal Policy-Making
Utilizing nationally representative survey data from the 2010 and 2012 administrations of the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, Damon M. Cann and Jeff Yates cover a good deal of ground that law and courts scholars and students of state politics will find interesting. The authors outline in a competent and comprehensive manner the factors that go into assessments of state court legitimacy, how citizens perceive judicial decision making, …
Thinking about Government Authority: Constitutional Rules and Political Context in Citizens’ Assessments of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Action
This study explores how citizens think about the appropriate exercise of authority across the branches of government. Three similarly designed experiments conducted on national samples reveal that what individuals are told about compliance with decision‐making rules matters across institutions, but so does the political context in which officials are acting. Participants’ policy preferences about the issues that are the subject of government acti…
Assessing the Credibility of Constitutional Experts
This study investigates how citizens assess the credibility of constitutional experts on matters of government authority. Analyses of data from two similarly designed experiments, conducted with national samples, reveal that partisanship, race, and level of education are significant predictors of survey respondents’ willingness to extend credibility to constitutional experts. The compatibility of the views expressed by experts with respondents’ o…
Institutional Prospects: Exploring Perceptions of Past Benefits and Future Risks From Supreme Court Decisions and Support for Institutional Change
This study investigates support for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court using prospect theory. Risk domain is alternatively conceptualized as the perception of retrospective benefits and future risks posed by Supreme Court decision‐making. Two experiments explore how citizens think about gains and losses from Court outputs. Findings indicate that retrospective benefits are influenced by the relevant time frame respondents are asked to consider, pol…
High Courts, Endowments, and Support for Institutional Change: Evidence from Israel and the United States
Proposals to change the institutional features of national high courts have been on the agenda recently in the United States and Israel. Using insights about endowment effects and prospect theory from behavioral economics, we theorize about how citizens may think about benefits from high courts and how those views can influence their support for change to those institutions. Mindful of differences across these countries, we employ a comparative e…
Political science (10 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (9 works) · Law (9 works) · Law (9 works) · Politics (6 works) · Psychology (6 works) · Social Psychology (6 works) · Social Psychology (6 works) · Electoral Systems and Political Participation (4 works) · Action (physics (3 works)