Event Title

Errors in Judgment: The Fundamental Attribution Error and Supreme Court Decision-making

Presenter Information

Kalind Parish, Oberlin College

Location

Science Center, A154

Document Type

Presentation

Start Date

4-24-2015 1:30 PM

End Date

4-24-2015 2:30 PM

Abstract

Understanding subconscious motivations in Supreme Court decision-making may provide us with a frame of reference to address undue considerations in our justice system. This paper asks two simple questions: does the fundamental attribution error correlate with Supreme Court outcomes, and what factors drive the error’s presence? This question is explored using an econometric approach from content-analyzed Supreme Court opinions. It is anticipated that the error will not be present at a rate of statistical significance, but that the error will be positively correlated with non-majority opinions, emotional language usage, and “politicized” questions of law.

Notes

Session 1, Panel 1 - Language and Authenticity: Studies of Metaphors, the Supreme Court, and the Free Speech Movement
Moderator: Steve Wojtal, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Link to full text thesis at OhioLINK ETD Center:
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=oberlin1431362168

Major

Law and Society; Politics

Advisor(s)

Ronald Kahn, Politics
Michael Parkin, Politics

Project Mentor(s)

Michael Parkin, Politics

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 24th, 1:30 PM Apr 24th, 2:30 PM

Errors in Judgment: The Fundamental Attribution Error and Supreme Court Decision-making

Science Center, A154

Understanding subconscious motivations in Supreme Court decision-making may provide us with a frame of reference to address undue considerations in our justice system. This paper asks two simple questions: does the fundamental attribution error correlate with Supreme Court outcomes, and what factors drive the error’s presence? This question is explored using an econometric approach from content-analyzed Supreme Court opinions. It is anticipated that the error will not be present at a rate of statistical significance, but that the error will be positively correlated with non-majority opinions, emotional language usage, and “politicized” questions of law.