Benjamin Woodson
Biographic Data
| ID | 1493068 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Benjamin Woodson |
| GIVEN NAMES | Benjamin |
| FAMILY NAME | Woodson |
| SIGNATURE | WOODSON B |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Missouri–Kansas City |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6108-8451 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 7 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 125 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 7 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2014 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 5 |
Judicial Elections, Acceptance, and Legitimacy with Judges as Representatives
This article proposes that elections with substantial amounts of campaign activity change the substance of a state supreme court’s legitimacy from one derived from the court’s legalistic nature to one derived through representation. Using a national survey, it shows that because of this change the perceived legitimacy of courts with robust elections does not induce acceptance of their decisions. Only nonrepresentative courts with the legalistic f…
The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast
Conventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditiona…
The Causes of the Legitimacy-Conferring and Republican Schoolmaster Capabilities of Courts
Some studies examining the effect of court decisions on public opinion examine their legitimacy-conferring role or ability to cause the public to accept specific policies. Others examine when courts act as a “republican schoolmaster” and change substantive policy attitudes. Using two studies, this article shows that these two effects are driven by different processes and caused by a different form of support. Legitimacy perceptions or diffuse sup…
The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions
Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple in…
Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions
Since courts lack control of the purse and the sword, understanding what causes the public to accept court decisions is essential. Using three studies, this paper shows that the public’s perception of the process judges use to make decisions changes the determinants of acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a principled decision-making process, institutional loyalty determines acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a politicized d…
Emotion and Political Judgment
What factors prompt citizens to switch from a partisan judgment strategy, one in which they reflexively side with the in-group in policy and electoral contests, to a more thoughtful one, in which they pause to consider additional information? Previous work suggests that variation in political reasoning is triggered by the experience of anxiety. In this research, we examine a broader consideration: whether the overall pattern of experienced emotio…
Losing, but Accepting
How is it that the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of getting most citizens to accept rulings with which they disagree? This analysis addresses the role of the symbols of judicial authority and legitimacy-the robe, the gavel, the cathedral-like court building-in contributing to this willingness of ordinary people to acquiesce to disagreeable court decisions. Using an experimental design and a nationally representative sample, we show that exposure …
Losing, but Accepting
How is it that the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of getting most citizens to accept rulings with which they disagree? This analysis addresses the role of the symbols of judicial authority and legitimacy-the robe, the gavel, the cathedral-like court building-in contributing to this willingness of ordinary people to acquiesce to disagreeable court decisions. Using an experimental design and a nationally representative sample, we show that exposure …
Emotion and Political Judgment
What factors prompt citizens to switch from a partisan judgment strategy, one in which they reflexively side with the in-group in policy and electoral contests, to a more thoughtful one, in which they pause to consider additional information? Previous work suggests that variation in political reasoning is triggered by the experience of anxiety. In this research, we examine a broader consideration: whether the overall pattern of experienced emotio…
The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions
Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple in…
Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions
Since courts lack control of the purse and the sword, understanding what causes the public to accept court decisions is essential. Using three studies, this paper shows that the public’s perception of the process judges use to make decisions changes the determinants of acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a principled decision-making process, institutional loyalty determines acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a politicized d…
The Causes of the Legitimacy-Conferring and Republican Schoolmaster Capabilities of Courts
Some studies examining the effect of court decisions on public opinion examine their legitimacy-conferring role or ability to cause the public to accept specific policies. Others examine when courts act as a “republican schoolmaster” and change substantive policy attitudes. Using two studies, this article shows that these two effects are driven by different processes and caused by a different form of support. Legitimacy perceptions or diffuse sup…
Judicial Elections, Acceptance, and Legitimacy with Judges as Representatives
This article proposes that elections with substantial amounts of campaign activity change the substance of a state supreme court’s legitimacy from one derived from the court’s legalistic nature to one derived through representation. Using a national survey, it shows that because of this change the perceived legitimacy of courts with robust elections does not induce acceptance of their decisions. Only nonrepresentative courts with the legalistic f…
The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast
Conventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditiona…
Losing, but Accepting
How is it that the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of getting most citizens to accept rulings with which they disagree? This analysis addresses the role of the symbols of judicial authority and legitimacy-the robe, the gavel, the cathedral-like court building-in contributing to this willingness of ordinary people to acquiesce to disagreeable court decisions. Using an experimental design and a nationally representative sample, we show that exposure …
Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions
Since courts lack control of the purse and the sword, understanding what causes the public to accept court decisions is essential. Using three studies, this paper shows that the public’s perception of the process judges use to make decisions changes the determinants of acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a principled decision-making process, institutional loyalty determines acceptance. When judges are perceived as using a politicized d…
Emotion and Political Judgment
What factors prompt citizens to switch from a partisan judgment strategy, one in which they reflexively side with the in-group in policy and electoral contests, to a more thoughtful one, in which they pause to consider additional information? Previous work suggests that variation in political reasoning is triggered by the experience of anxiety. In this research, we examine a broader consideration: whether the overall pattern of experienced emotio…
The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions
Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple in…
The Causes of the Legitimacy-Conferring and Republican Schoolmaster Capabilities of Courts
Some studies examining the effect of court decisions on public opinion examine their legitimacy-conferring role or ability to cause the public to accept specific policies. Others examine when courts act as a “republican schoolmaster” and change substantive policy attitudes. Using two studies, this article shows that these two effects are driven by different processes and caused by a different form of support. Legitimacy perceptions or diffuse sup…
The Chief Justice versus the iconoclast
Conventional wisdom assumes that the public wants judges that will simply interpret and apply the law as it is written. However, existing evidence shows a substantial portion of the American population supports the doctrine of popular constitutionalism. Using two experiments involving the use of social science in legal decisions, we show that popular constitutionalists evaluate the judiciary using a different set of criteria than legal traditiona…
Judicial Elections, Acceptance, and Legitimacy with Judges as Representatives
This article proposes that elections with substantial amounts of campaign activity change the substance of a state supreme court’s legitimacy from one derived from the court’s legalistic nature to one derived through representation. Using a national survey, it shows that because of this change the perceived legitimacy of courts with robust elections does not induce acceptance of their decisions. Only nonrepresentative courts with the legalistic f…
Law (7 works) · Law (7 works) · Political science (7 works) · Politics (7 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (6 works) · Legitimacy (4 works) · Psychology (4 works) · Law in Society and Culture (3 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (3 works) · Perception (3 works)