Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:26:15.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth Order, Preferences, and Norms on the U.S. Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Kevin T. McGuire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The members of the U.S. Supreme Court have different ideas about what constitutes good judicial policy as well as how best to achieve that policy. From where do these ideas originate? Evolutionary psychology suggests that an answer may lie in early life experiences in which siblings assume roles that affect an adult's likely acceptance of changes in the established order. According to this view, older siblings take on responsibilities that make them more conservative and rule-bound, while younger ones adopt roles that promote liberalism and greater rebelliousness. Applying this theory to the Court, I show that these childhood roles manifest themselves in later life in the decisions of the justices. Birth order explains not only the justices’ policy preferences but also their acceptance of one important norm of judicial decisionmaking, specifically their willingness to exercise judicial review.

Type
Articles on Society and the Supreme Court
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 945 - 972
Copyright
© 2015 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

I am grateful for the insights and suggestions of John Aldrich, Roy Flemming, Tracey George, William Jacoby, Michael Mackuen, Georg Vanberg, the anonymous reviewers, and the participants in the visiting speaker series at the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame.

References

Abramowitz, Stephen I., & Abramowitz, Christine V. (1971) “Birth Order, Sensitivity to Socialization, and Student Activism,” 18 J. of Counseling Psychology 184–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Alfred (1928) Understanding Human Nature. New York: Greenberg.Google Scholar
Andeweg, Rudy B., & Van Den Berg, Steef B. (2003) “Linking Birth Order to Political Leadership: The Impact of Parents or Sibling Interaction?” 24 Political Psychology 605–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkow, Jerome H., Leda, Cosmides, & John, Tooby (1995) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2006) Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2010) “Motivation and Judicial Behavior: Expanding the Scope of Inquiry,” in Klein, D., & Mitchell, G., eds., The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence, & Neal, Devins (2010) “Why the Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not the American People,” 98 Georgetown Law J. 1515−581.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., & Owens, Ryan J. (2012) The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broh, C. Anthony (1981) “Siblings and Political Socialization: A Closer Look at the Direct Transmission Thesis,” 3 Political Psychology 173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, David M. (1997) “Evolutionary Foundation of Personality,” in Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S., eds., Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Roger D., & Rice, Glenn A. (1982) “Family Constellations and Eminence: The Birth Orders of Nobel Prize Winners,” 110 J. of Psychology 281–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, Dalton (2004) The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Douglas, William O. (1949) “Stare Decisis,” 49 Columbia Law Rev. 735–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007a) “The Judicial Common Space,” 23 J. of Law, Economics & Organization 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, et al. (2007b) U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database. Available at: http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/justicesdata.html (accessed 29 September 2007).Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert, & Cindy, Kam (2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, Jeremy, Powell, Brian, & Steelman, Lala Carr (1999) “Rebel Without a Cause or Effect: Birth Order and Social Attitudes,” 64 American Sociological Rev. 207–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L (1978) “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model,” 72 American Political Science Rev. 911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Judith Rich (2009) The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Healey, Matthew D., & Ellis, Bruce J. (2007) “Birth Order, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience Tests of the Family-Niche Model of Personality Using a Within-Family Methodology,” 28 Evolution and Human Behavior 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., & Weiler, Jonathan D. (2009) Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell (1899) “Law in Science and Science in Law,” 12 Harvard Law Rev. 443–63.Google Scholar
Hudson, Valerie M. (1990) “Birth Order of World Leaders: An Exploratory Analysis of Effects on Personality and Behavior,” 11 Political Psychology 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. (2002) “Activism and Restraint on the Rehnquist Court: Timing, Sequence, and Conjuncture in Constitutional Development,” 35 Polity 121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E., & Mitchell, Gregory (2010) The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Cross, Frank (2009) Measuring Judicial Activism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Solberg, Rorie Spill (2007) “Judicial Review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining Justices’ Responses to Constitutional Challenges,” 60 Political Research Q. 71–90.CrossRefGoogle 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
McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa, Jr. (1987) “Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers,” 52 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, Kevin T. (2013) “The Psychological Origins of a Constitutional Revolution: The Supreme Court, Birth Order, and Nationalizing the Bill of Rights.” 66 Political Research Q. 441–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth (2007) The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer.” New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. (2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F., & Joseph, Tanenhaus (1972) The Study of Public Law. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Nemacheck, Christine L. (2007) Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Joan, & Taylor, Alan (1994) “Family Training for Political Leadership: Birth Order of the United States State Governors and Australian Prime Ministers,” 15 Political Psychology 435–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Wayne D. (1998) “Birth-Order Effects in the Academically Talented,” 42 Gifted Child Q. 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejai, Mostafa, & Phillips, Kay (1988) “Loyalists and Revolutionaries: Political Elites in Comparative Perspective,” 9 International Political Science Rev. 107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca Mae (1996) “Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” in Salokar, R., & Volcansek, M., eds., Women in Law: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cover, Albert D. (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, David Keith (1994) Greatness: Who Makes History and Why. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, Peterson, Steven A., & Arwine, Alan (1993) “Birth Order and Political Behavior: Clearing the Underbrush,” 14 International Political Science Rev. 149–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Louis H. (1992) Changemakers: A Jungian Perspective on Sibling Position and the Family Atmosphere. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sulloway, Frank J. (1996) Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Sulloway, Frank J. (2007) “Birth Order and Sibling Competition,” in Dunbar, R., & Barrett, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sulloway, Frank J., & Zweigenhaft, Richard L. (2010) “Birth Order and Risk Taking in Athletics: A Meta-Analysis and Study of Major League Baseball,” 14 Personality and Social Psychology Rev. 402–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tate, C. Neal (1981) “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978,” 75 American Political Science Rev. 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, & Handberg, Roger (1991) “Time Binding and Theory Building in Personal Attribute Models of Supreme Court Voting Behavior, 1916–88,” 35 American J. of Political Science 460–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. (1983) “Cognitive Style and Political Ideology,” 45 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., Bernzweig, Jane, & Gallant, Jack L. (1985) “Supreme Court Decision Making: Cognitive Style as a Predictor of Ideological Consistency in Voting,” 48 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 1227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Clarence (2007) My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Tooby, John, & Leda, Cosmides (1995) “The Psychological Foundations of Culture,” in Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, Frederic (2000) “Birth Order and Rebelliousness: Reconstructing the Research in Born to Rebel,” 19 Politics and the Life Sciences 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney (1986) “Are Social Background Models Time-Bound?” 80 American Political Science Rev. 957–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Paul J. (1984) “The Birth Order Oddity in Supreme Court Appointments,” 14 Presidential Studies Q. 561–68.Google Scholar
Wisdom, Gayle, & Walsh, Richard P. (1975) “Dogmatism and Birth Order,” 31 J. of Industrial Psychology 32–36.Google ScholarPubMed
Wrightsman, Lawrence S. (2006) The Psychology of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalof, David A. (1999) Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zweigenhaft, Richard L., & Von Ammon, Jessica (2000) “Birth Order and Civil Disobedience: A Test of Sulloway's ‘Born to Rebel’ Hypothesis,” 140 J. of Social Psychology 624–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed