Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T08:18:21.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Scott S. Boddery Open the ORCID record for Scott S. Boddery [Opens in a new window] ,
Laura P. Moyer  and
Jeff Yates
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 353 - 385
Copyright
© 2019 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Jamie Druckman, Susan Haire, Andrew O'Geen, Steven Brooke, David Buckley, Jamie Carson, Jim Gibson, and the reviewers and editors of Law & Society Review for their helpful critiques on earlier drafts of this article.

References

References

Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C. (2003) “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” 80 Economics Letters 123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin & Nicholson, Stephen P. (2012) “Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement,” 45 PS: Political Science and Politics 700–10.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Cory L. & McAdams, Melinda J. (2009) “Blogs of Information: How Gender Cues and Individual Motivations Influence Perceptions of Credibility,” 14 J. of Computer-Mediated Communication 435–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baas, Larry R. & Thomas, Dan (1984) “The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation: Experimental Tests,” 12 American Politics Research 335–60.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael (2007) “Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency,” 51 American J. of Political Science 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. (2001) “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice,” 54 Political Research Q. 333–54.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. & Gangl, Amy (2006) “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media's Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness,” 27 Political Psychology 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. & Mutz, Diana C. (2009) “Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership,” 71 J. of Politics 249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. & Johnston, Christopher D. (2013) “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public,” 57 American J. of Political Science 184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., & Lenz, Gabriel S. (2012) “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk,” 20 Political Analysis 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G., Hayes, Thomas J., Incantalupo, Matthew B., & Smith, Charles A. (2015) “Opinion Backlash and Public Attitudes: Are Political Advances in Gay Rights Counterproductive?” 60 American J. of Political Science 625–48.Google Scholar
Boddery, Scott S. & Yates, Jeff (2014) “Do Policy Messengers Matter? Majority Opinion Writers as Policy Cues in Public Agreement with Supreme Court Decisions,” 67 Political Research Q. 851–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogoch, Bryna (1997) “Gendered Lawyering: Difference and Dominance in Lawyer-Client Interaction,” 31 Law and Society Rev. 677–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozzo, Peter (2015) “The Jurisprudence of ‘As Though’: Democratic Dialogue and the Signed Supreme Court Opinion,” 26 Yale J. of Law & the Humanities 269–300.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., & Golder, Matt (2006) “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses,” 14 Political Analysis 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. & Spill, Rorie L. (2002) “Existing Diversity and Judicial Selection: The Role of the Appointment Method in Establishing Gender Diversity in State Supreme Courts,” 83 Social Science Q. 504–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigham, John (1987) “Right, Rage, and Remedy: Forms of Law in Political Discourse,” in Monkkonen, E., ed., Studies in American Political Development, Vol. 2. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. 303.Google Scholar
Brown, Robert L. & Campbell, Shelia (1997) “How the Public Views Female and Black Attorneys,” 33 Arkansas Law Rev. 22–8.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. (1986) “Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court,” 80 American Political Science Rev. 1209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon & Yates, Jeff (2016) These Estimable Courts: Understanding Public Perceptions of State Judicial Institutions and Legal Policy-Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon & Yates, Jeff (2008) “Homegrown Institutional Legitimacy: Assessing Citizens' Diffuse Support for State Courts,” 36 American Politics Research 297–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, Bradley C. & Johnson, Charles A. (1984) Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah & Krook, Mona L. (2006) “Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes,” 2 Politics & Gender 522–30.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P. & Glick, David M. (2015) “Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy,” 59 American J. of Political Science 403–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom D. & Kastellec, Jonathan P. (2015) “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court,” 43 American Politics Research 504–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, Rosalee A. & Waltenburg, Eric N. (2003) “Support for a Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision: A Story in Black and White,” 31 American Politics Research 251–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Jewell, Ryan M., & Waggoner, Phillip D. (2015) “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?,” 2 Research and Politics 1–9 (October).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd A. & Cooper, Christopher A. (2012) “Case Salience and Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions Toward a New Measure,” 65 Political Research Q. 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Richard (2014) “Political and Media Factors in the Evolution of the Media's Role in US Supreme Court Nominations,” 4 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 652–84.Google Scholar
Davis, Shannon N. & Greenstein, Theodore N. (2009) “Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences,” 35 Annual Rev. of Sociology 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. (2001) “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” 63 J. of Politics 1041–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel (1974) American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey, & Spaeth, Harold (2001) “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 45 American J. of Political Science 362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M. (2007) Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M. (1983) “The Bureaucratization of the Judiciary,” 92 The Yale Law J. 1442–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A. (1992) “Blacks and the United States Supreme Court: Models of Diffuse Support,” J. of Politics 1120–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., & Baird, Vanessa A. (1998) “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” 92 American Political Science Rev. 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., & Spence, Lester K. (2003) “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court,” 47 American J. of Political Science 8–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., & Spence, Lester K. (2005) “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment,” 58 Political Research Q. 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. (2007) “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Policy,” 4 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 507–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. & Caldeira, Gregory A. (2009) “Confirmation Politics and the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination,” 53 American J. of Political Science 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. (2012) Can the Supreme Court Survive a Health-Care Decision? Pacific Standard. Available at: https://psmag.com/can-the-supreme-court-survive-a-health-care-decision-4347fa5fc65f#.agcr8jrwp (accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Lodge, Milton, & Woodson, Benjamin (2014) “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority,” 48 Law & Society Rev. 837–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. (2015) “Legitimacy Is for Losers: The Interconnections of Institutional Legitimacy, Performance Evaluations, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority,” in Bornstein, B. & Tomkins, A., eds., Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority: The Role of Institutional Trust. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. & Nelson, Michael J. (2015, 59) “Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American J. of Political Science 162–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Rebecca D., Lazos, Sylvia R., & Waters, Mallory M. (2011) “Are Judicial Performance Evaluations Fair to Women and Minorities? A Cautionary Tale from Clark County, Nevada,” 45 Law and Society Rev. 731–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth B. (1990) “Remarks on Writing Separately,” 90 Washington Law Rev. 133–50.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon, Slotnick, Elliot, & Schiavoni, Sara (2013) “Obama's First Term Judiciary: Picking Judges in the Minefield of Obstructionism,” 97 Judicature 7–47.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth E. (2016) “Female Candidates, Sociopolitical Subculture, and State Attorney General Elections,” 37 Justice System J. 63–71 (January).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda (2004) “Justices Uphold a Nevada Law Requiring Citizens to Identify Themselves to the Police,” New York Times, 22 June 22, sec. A, p. 16.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Messing, Solomon, & Westwood, Sean J. (2012) “How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation,” 106 American Political Science Rev. 706–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, David (1981) “Political Culture and Female Political Representation,” 43 J. of Politics 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. (1995) “The Supreme Court and Opinion Change: An Experimental Study of the Court's Ability to Change Opinion,” 23 American Politics Research 109–29.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory, Hill, Seth, & Lenz, Gabriel (2012) “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters' Limitations in Controlling Incumbents,” 106 American Political Science Rev. 720–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie & Terkildsen, Nayda (1993) “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Offices,” 46 Political Research Q. 503–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, Connor, & Tingley, Dustin (2015) “‘Who Are These People?’ Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents,” 2 Research and Politics 1–12 (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Tonja & Schweers, Dylan (2017) “Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology, and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments,” 103 Virginia Law Rev. 1379–496.Google Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D. & Bartels, Brandon L. (2010) “Sensationalism and Sobriety: Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes toward American Courts,” 74 Public Opinion Q. 260–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D., Sunshine Hillygus, D., & Bartels, Brandon L. (2014) “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy,” 78 Public Opinion Q. 963–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Napier, Jaime L., Thorisdottir, Hulda, Gosling, Samuel D., Palfai, Tibor P., & Ostafin, Brian (2007) “Are Needs to Manage Uncertainty and Threat Associated with Political Conservatism or Ideological Extremity?” 33 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 989–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jost, John T., Glaser, Jack, Kruglanski, Arie W., & Sulloway, Frank J. (2003) “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” 129 Psychological Bulletin 339–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, Daniel (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam S. (2014) “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity,” 1 J. of Experimental Political Science 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Charles (2004) “Refusing to Give Name a Crime,” Washington Post, 22 June, sec. A, p. 6.Google Scholar
Lerner, Craig S. & Lund, Nelson (2010) “Judicial Duty and the Supreme Court's Cult of Celebrity,” 78 George Washington Law Rev. 1255–99.Google Scholar
Levay, Kevin E., Freese, Jeremy, & Druckman, James N. (2016) “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples,” 6 SAGE Open 1–17 (January).Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam (2016) “When a Senator Passes Judgment on a Chief Justice,” New York Times, 19 April, sec. A, p. 17.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (1996, 58) “Inside the U.S. Supreme Court: The Reliability of the Justices' Conference Records,” J. of Politics 528–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, James (2006) “Against Individually Signed Judicial Opinions,” 56 Duke Law J. 923–51.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauro, Tony (1999) “Justice's Supreme Use of ‘I’ Sparks a Legal Frenzy.” USA Today, 2 April 2, sec. A, p. 11.Google Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. (1998) “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections,” 51 Political Research Q. 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1992) “Institutional Legitimacy, Policy Legitimacy, and the Supreme Court,” 20 American Politics Q. 457–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1994) “Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of Legitimation,” 47 Political Research Q. 675–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Laura M. & Vanneman, Reeve (2003) “Context Matters: Effects of the Proportion of Fundamentalists on Gender Attitudes,” 82 Social Forces 115–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., & Freese, Jeremy (2015) “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments,” 2 J. of Experimental Political Science 109–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Dee Dee (2009) Why the Supreme Court Needs a ‘Critical Mass’ of Women. Vanity Fair (July 13). Available at: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/07/why-the-supreme-court-needs-a-critical-mass-of-women (accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Nash, Jonathan R. (2015) “Expertise and Opinion Assignment on the Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation,” 66 Florida Law Rev. 1599–684.Google Scholar
National Women's Law Center (2016) Judges and the Courts: Women in the Federal Judiciary: Still a Long Way to Go. National Women's Law Center. Available at: http://nwlc.org/resources/women-federal-judiciary-still-long-way-go/ (accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Neff, Allen (1981) The United States District Judge Nominating Commissions: Their Members, Procedures and Candidates. Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
Nelson, Kjersten (2015) “Double-Bind on the Bench: Citizen Perceptions of Judge Gender and the Court,” 11 Politics & Gender 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. & Hansford, Thomas G. (2014) “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions,” 58 American J. of Political Science 620–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara & Wilcox, Clyde (1998) “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy,” 27 Policy Studies J. 707–22.Google Scholar
Paolacci, Gabriele, Chandler, Jesse, & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G. (2010) “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk,” 5 Judgment and Decision making 411–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, Dana & Smith, Joseph L. (2017) “Lawyer, Interrupted: Gender Bias in Oral Arguments at the US Supreme Court,” 5 J. of Law and Courts 337–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Jennifer L. (1995) Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Powers, Rebecca S., Suitor, J. Jill, Guerra, Susana, Shackelford, Monisa, Mecom, Dorothy, & Gusman, Kim (2003) “Regional differences in Gender—Role Attitudes: Variations by Gender and Race,” 21 Gender Issues 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, Laura K. (2000) “The Road to Bush v. Gore: The History of the Supreme Court's Use of the per Curiam Opinion,” 79 Nebraska Law Rev. 517–76.Google Scholar
Robbins, Ira (2012) “Hiding behind the Cloak of Invisibility: The Supreme Court and per Curiam Opinions,” 86 Tulane Law Rev. 1197–242.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. (2012) “What Makes Us Click? Demonstrating Incentives for Angry Discourse with Digital-Age Field Experiments,” 74 J. of Politics 1138–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamone, Michael F. (2014) “Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion: Conditional Response to Supreme Court Majority Size,” 62 Political Research Q. 320–34.Google Scholar
Schneider, Monica C. & Bos, Angela L. (2014) “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians,” 35 Political Psychology 245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotnick, Elliot E. & Segal, Jennifer A. (1994) “‘Supreme Court Decided Today’…Or Did It?” 78 Judicature 89–95.Google Scholar
Slotnick, Elliot E. & Segal, Jennifer A. (1998) Television News and the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheb, John M. II & Lyons, William (2000) “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court,” 81 Social Science Q. 928–40.Google Scholar
Scherer, Nancy & Curry, Brett (2010) “Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts,” 72 J. of Politics 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Maya (2014) “How Judicial Qualification Ratings May Disadvantage Minority and Female Candidates,” 2 J. of Law and Courts 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spill, Rorie & Oxley, Zoe (2003) “Philosopher Kings or Political Actors: How the Media Portray the Supreme Court,” 87 Judicature 22–9.Google Scholar
University of Albany (2016) Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Available at: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/about.html (accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Wang, Amy B. (2017) “Trump Lashes Out at ‘So-Called Judge’ Who Temporarily Blocked Travel Ban,” Washington Post, 4 February. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/04/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-who-temporarily-blocked-travel-ban/?utm_term=.ae9d93b38678 (accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Weinberg, Jill D., Freese, Jeremy, & McElhattan, David (2014) “Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample,” 1 Sociological Science 292–310 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Richard (2012) “Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects,” 12 Stata J. 308–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windett, Jason H. (2011) “State Effects and the Emergence and Success of Female Gubernatorial Candidates,” 11 State Politics & Policy Q. 460–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. (2015) The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zink, James R., Spriggs, James F., & Scott, John T. (2009) “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals' Views of Court Opinions,” 71 J. of Politics 909–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).Google Scholar
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).Google Scholar
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).Google Scholar
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Boddery et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 190 KB