Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T12:07:09.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The (Dis)Advantage of Certainty: The Importance of Certainty in Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Pamela C. Corley  and
Justin Wedeking
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can legal decision makers increase the likelihood of a favorable response from other legal and social actors? To answer this, we propose a novel theory based on the certainty expressed in language that is applicable to many different legal contexts. The theory is grounded in psychology and legal advocacy and suggests that expressing certainty enhances the persuasiveness of a message. We apply this theory to the principal–agent framework to examine the treatment of Supreme Court precedent by the Federal Courts of Appeal. We find that as the level of certainty in the Supreme Court's opinion increases, the lower courts are more likely to positively treat the Court's decision. We then discuss the implications of our findings for using certainty in a broader context.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 35 - 62
Copyright
© 2014 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 thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. In addition, we thank Brad Canon, Paul Collins, Chris Olds, James Pennebaker, and Rick Waterman for helpful advice or comments on earlier versions of this article. An earlier version was presented at the 2013 Midwest Political Science Association and the 2013 Kentucky Political Science Association. All mistakes are our own.

References

References

Alpers, Georg W., et al. (2005) “Evaluation of Computerized Text Analysis in an Internet Breast Cancer Support Group,” 21 Computers in Human Behavior 361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A., & Javeline, Debra (2007) “The Persuasive Power of Russian Courts,” 60 Political Research Q. 429–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandum, Erin O'Carroll, & Owen, Jason E. (2009) “Evaluating the Validity of Computerized Content Analysis Programs for Identification of Emotional Expression in Cancer Narratives,” 21 Psychological Assessment 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1978) “Lower Court Response to Supreme Court Decisions: Reconsidering a Negative Picture,” 3 Justice System J. 208–19.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. (2002) The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Law of Confessions: Perspectives on the Hierarchy of Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Reddick, Malia (2002) “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent,” 64 J. of Politics 534–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan, et al. (2011) “Emotions, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making,” 73 J. of Politics 572–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Donald (1989) Sociological Justice. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, & Spaeth, Harold J. (1995) Stare Indecisis: The Alteration of Precedent on the Supreme Court, 1946–1992. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, James C. (2003) “A Principal-Agent Analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals Responses to Boerne V. Flores,” 31 American Politics Research 557–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Neil, & Burke, Anne (2002) “Effects of Testimonial Inconsistencies and Eyewitness Confidence on Mock Juror Judgments,” 26 Law and Human Behavior 353–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Shuki J. (2012) “Construction and Preliminary Validation of a Dictionary for Cognitive Rigidity: Linguistic Markers of Overconfidence and Overgeneralization and Their Concomitant Psychological Distress,” 41 J. of Psycholinguistic Research 347–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, Paul M. Jr, & Martinek, Wendy L. (2011) “The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeal,” 8 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. (2008) “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties' Briefs,” 61 Political Research Q. 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C. (2009) “Uncertain Precedent: Circuit Court Responses to Supreme Court Plurality Opinions,” 37 American Politics Research 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela C., Collins, Paul M Jr, & Calvin, Bryan (2011) “Lower Court Influence on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content,” 73 J. of Politics 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B., & Pennebaker, James W. (2012) The Language of the Roberts Court.” ExpressO. Working paper available online: http://works.bepress.com/frank_cross/4.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (2000) “Measuring Issue Salience,” 44 American J. of Political Science 66–83.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) The Supreme Court Compendium. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Federal Judicial Center (1991) Judicial Writing Manual.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., & Modigliani, Andre (1987) “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action,” in Braungart, Richard D, ed., Research in Political Sociology, 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI. 137–77.Google Scholar
Gardner, James A. (1993) Legal Argument: The Structure and Language of Effective Advocacy. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.Google Scholar
George, Joyce J. (2007) Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook. Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., & Yoon, Albert H. (2003) “The Federal Court System: A Principal-Agent Perspective,” 47 St. Louis Univ. Law J. 819–34.Google Scholar
Gruhl, John (1980) “The Supreme Court's Impact on the Law of Libel: Compliance by Lower Federal Courts,” 33 Western Political Q. 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruhl, John (1981) “Anticipatory Compliance with Supreme Court Rulings,” 14 Polity 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., & Wistrich, Andrew J. (2001) “Inside the Judicial Mind,” 86 Cornell Law Rev. 777–830.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. (2011) The Nature of Supreme Court Power. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, & Brace, Paul (1992) “Toward An Integrated Model of Judicial Voting Behavior,” 20 American Politics Q. 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander (1788) Federalist Paper #78.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G., & Spriggs, James F. II (2006) The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazelton, Vincent, Cupach, William R., & Liska, Jo (1986) “Message Style: An Investigation of the Perceived Characteristics of Persuasive Messages,” 1 J. of Social Behavior and Personality 565–74.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2006) Judging on A Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Higdon, Michael J. (2010) “Something Judicial This Way Comes … The Use of Foreshadowing as a Persuasive Device in Judicial Narrative,” 44 Univ. of Richmond Law Rev. 1213–60.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., & Shipan, Charles R. (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., Shipan, Charles R., & Pfahler, Madelaine (2001) “Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy,” 45 American J. of Political Science 330–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Robert J. (2006) “The Use of Rhetorical Sources by the U.S. Supreme Court,” 40 Law & Society Rev. 817–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. (1979) “Lower Court Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions: A Quantitative Examination,” 23 American J. of Political Science 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A. (1987) “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 325–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Jeffrey H., et al. (2007) “Measuring Emotional Expression with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count,” 120 The American J. of Psychology 263–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Pauline T. (2007) “Lower Court Discretion,” 82 New York Univ. Law Rev. 383–442.Google Scholar
Kim, Pauline T. (2011) “Beyond Principal-Agent Theories: Law and the Judicial Hierarchy,” 105 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 535–75.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. (2002) Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, & Garry, John (2003) “Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts,” 97 American Political Science Rev. 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebovits, Gerald, Curtin, Alifya V., & Solomon, Lisa (2008) “Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing,” 21 Georgetown J. of Legal Ethics 237–309.Google Scholar
Lebovits, Gerald, & Hidalgo, Lucero R. (2009) “Advice to Law Clerks: How to Draft Your First Judicial Opinion,” 36 Westchester Bar J. 29–37.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, & Freese, Jeremy (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, & Wahlbeck, Paul (2004) “A Conditional Model of Opinion Assignment on the Supreme Court,” 57 Political Research Q. 551–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew, & Schwartz, Thomas (1984) “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” 28 American J. of Political Science 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., & Peterson, David A. M. (2004) “Theoretical and Empirical Implications of Attitude Strength,” 66 J. of Politics 847–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1982) “Regulatory Performance and Presidential Administration,” 26 American J. of Political Science 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1984) “The New Economics of Organization,” 28 American J. of Political Science 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., & Wedeking, Justin (2011) “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions,” 45 Law & Society Rev. 1027–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., & Wedeking, Justin (2012) “Some (Potential) Applications of Computer Content Analysis to the Study of Law and Courts,” 22 Law & Courts 26–32.Google Scholar
Petrocelli, John V., Tormala, Zakary, & Rucker, Derek D. (2007) “Unpacking Attitude Certainty: Attitude Clarity and Attitude Correctness,” 92 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 30–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, Richard A. (2009) Law and Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Randazzo, Kirk, Waterman, Richard W., & Fine, Jeffrey A. (2006) “Checking the Federal Courts: The Impact of Congressional Statutes on Judicial Behavior,” 68 J. of Politics 1006–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieke, Richard D., & Stutman, Randall K. (1990) Communication in Legal Advocacy. Columbia, SC: Univ. of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, & Garner, Bryan A. (2008) Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Sniezek, Janet, & Buckley, Timothy (1995) “Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making,” 62 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniezek, Janet, & Van Swol, Lyn (2001) “Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System,” 84 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. (1993) The Language of Judges. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Haire, Susan (1992) “Integrating Alterative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 963–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cameron, Charles M (1994) “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions,” 38 American J. of Political Science 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2006) The Original United States Supreme Court Database, 1953–2005 Terms. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univ., Dept. Political Science.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II (1996) “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1122–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II (2003) “The Attitudinal Model: An Explanation of Case Dispositions, Not Substantive Policy Outcomes,” 13 Law and Courts 23–6.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, & Hansford, Thomas G (2000) “Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard's Citations,” 53 Political Research Q. 327–41.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, & Hansford, Thomas G (2002) “The U.S. Supreme Court's Incorporation and Interpretation of Precedent,” 36 Law & Society Rev. 139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K., & Vanberg, Georg (2008) “The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions,” 52 American J. of Political Science 504–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., & Pennebaker, James W. (2010) “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods,” 29 J. of Language and Social Psychology 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul, Spriggs, James F. II, & Sigelman, Lee (2002) “Ghostwriters on the Court? A Stylistic Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Drafts,” 30 American Politics Research 166–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waicukauski, Ronald, Sandler, Paul M., & Epps, JoAnne (2001) The Wining Argument. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Publishing.Google Scholar
Wasby, Stephen L. (1970) The Impact of the United States Supreme Court: Some Perspectives. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, Bernard E., & Greenberg, Martin S. (1986) “The Role of Eyewitness Confidence in Juror Perceptions of Credibility,” 16 J. of Applied Social Psychology 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, & Waterman, Richard W. (1991) “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” 85 American Political Science Rev. 801–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, J. Frank, Price, Paul C., Lee, Ju-Whei, & Ramirez, James (1996) “Good Probabilistic Forecasters: The ‘Consumer's’ Perspective,” 12 International J. of Forecasting 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Hutto v. Davis 454 U.S. 370 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services 433 U.S. 425 (1977).Google Scholar