Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The methodology of judicial behavior research: A review and critique

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the development of a better fit between theory and methodology in judicial behavior research by reviewing, assessing, and making recommendations for the use of the latter. The methodological practice of judicial behavior research is assessed, and recommendations and projections to the future are provided. Four components of methodology—research design, data sources and generation procedures, operationalization and measurement of concepts, and statistical methods and measures—are discussed. Judicial behavior is understood to have a primary focus on the explanation of the behavior of individual decision makers, but also includes decision making within or by groups of decision makers and by courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkins, Burton M. (1982). “Toward an Elusive Comparative Judicial Behavior.” Paper presented to the Twelth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Rio de Janeiro, August 14.

  • Atkins, Burton M., Lenore Alpert, and Robert Ziller (1980). “Personality Theory and Judging: A Proposed Theory of Self Esteem and Judicial Policy-Making.”Law and Policy Quarterly (April), pp. 189–220.

  • Babbie, Earl R. (1973).Survey Research. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, Earl R. (1979).The Practice of Social Research (2nd ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Lawrence (1982). “Judicial Politics in the 1980's: One View of the Field.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver (September 2–5).

  • Blackshield, A. R. (1972). “Quantitative Analysis: The High Court of Australia, 1964–1969.”Lawasia 3:1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, Don R. (1965).The Explanation of Judicial Voting Behavior from Sociological Characteristics of Judges. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

  • Brenner, Saul (1979). “The New Certiorari Game.”Journal of Politics 41:649–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Saul (1981). “Strategic Choice and Opinion Assignment on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reexamination.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Memphis, November 5–7.

  • Caldeira, Gregory A. (1982). “A Tale of Two Reforms: On the Work of the U.S. Supreme Court.” In Philip L. Dubois (ed.),The Analysis of Judicial Reform. Lexington, Mass. Lexington Books, pp. 137–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, Gregory A., and Donald J. McCrone (1982). “Of Time and Judicial Activism: A Study of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1800–1973.” In Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb (eds.),Supreme Court Activism and Restraint. Lexington, Mass. Lexington Books, pp. 103–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T., and Julian E. Stanley (1963).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carp, Robert, and Claude K. Rowland (1983).The Politics of District Court Policy Making. Knoxville, Tenn. University of Tennessee Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carp, Robert, and Russell Wheeler (1972). “Sink or Swim: The Socialization of a Federal District Judge.”Journal of Public Law 21:359–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1971) “The Socialization of New Federal Judges: Impact on District Court Business.”Washington University Law Review 1971:253–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Beverly B. (1982). “The Personality and Procreative Behavior of Trial Judges: A Biocultural Perspective.”International Political Science Review 3:51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croydon, Stanley O., Jr. (1980). “JURIS: A Tool for Legal Research.” In Beth Krevitt Eres (ed.), Legal and Legislative Information Processing. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, pp. 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1960). “The Influence of the Chief Justice on the Decisional Process.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Reprinted in Walter F. Murphy and C. Herman Pritchett (ed.),Courts, Judges and Politics: An Introduction to the Judicial Process. New York: Random House, 1961, pp. 497–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1964).A Supreme Court Justice is Appointed. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1966). “Values as Variables in the Judicial Process.”Vanderbilt Law Review 19:721–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1969). “The Supreme Court of Japan: An Exploratory Study.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 121–156.

  • Danelski, David J. (1970). “Legislative and Judicial Decision-Making: The Case of Harold H. Burton.” In S. Sidney Ulmer (ed.),Political Decision-Making. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, pp. 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danelski, David J. (1982) “The Causes and Consequences of Conflict and Its Resolution in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Denver.

  • Dator, James Allen (1967). “The Life History and Attitudes of Japanese High Court Judges.”Western Political Quarterly 20:408–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dator, James Allen (1969). “Measuring Attitudes Across Cultures: A Factor Analysis of the Replies of Japanese Judges to Eysenck's Inventory of Conservative Progressive Ideology.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 71–102.

  • Ducat, Craig R., and Victor E. Flango (1977). “Toward an Integration of Public Law and Judicial Behavior.”Journal of Politics 39:41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebersole, Joseph L. (1980). “The Emergence of Computer-Assisted Research as an Established Legal Tool.” In Eres (1980), pp. 129–148.

  • Eres, Beth Krevitt, ed. (1980).Legal and Legislative Information Processing. Westport, Conn. Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everson, George (1919). “The Human Element in Justice.”Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 10:90–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Franklin M. (1958). “The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Cout Decisions: The Use and Abuse of Quantitative Methods.”American Political Science Review 52:321–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouts, Donald R. (1969). “Policy-Making in the Supreme Court of Canada.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 257–292.

  • Gadbois, George H., Jr. (1974). “Supreme Court Decision Making.”Banares Law Journal 10:1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadbois, George H., Jr. (1969a). “Indian Supreme Court Judges: A Portrait.”Law and Society Review 3:317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadbois, George H., Jr. (1969b). “Selection, Background Characteristics, and Voting Behavior of Indian Supreme Court Judges.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 221–256.

  • Gadbois, George H., Jr. (1970). “Indian Judicial Behavior.”Economic and Political Weekly 5:3, 4, 5 (January), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudet, Fredrick. (1938). “Individual Differences in the Sentencing Tendencies of Judges.”Archives of Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1978) “Judges Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model,”American Political Science Review, 72:911–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1981) “Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self Esteem on Judicial Decision Making,”Journal of Politics 43 (February), 104–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. (1983). “From Simplicity to Complexity: The Development of Theory of Judicial Behavior.”Political Behavior 5:5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Henry R. (1970). “Interviewing Judges: Access and Interview Setting.”Research in Social Science 13:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Henry R. (1971).Supreme Courts in State Politics: An Investigation of the Judicial Role. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Henry R., and Kenneth N. Vines (1973).State Court Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1966). “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals, 1961–64.”American Political Science Review 60:374–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Sheldon (1975). “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited.”American Political Science Review 69:491–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gow, David John (1979). “Scale Fitting in the Psychometric Model of Judicial Decision Making.”American Political Science Review 73:430–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, David L. (1967). “Interviewing at the Court.”Public Opinion Quarterly 31:285–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, David L. (1968).The Supreme Court and the News Media. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, Joel B. (1969). “A Model for Judicial Policy Analysis: The Supreme Court and the Sit-In Cases.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (1969), pp. 405–460.

  • Grossman, Joel B., and Joseph Tanenhaus (eds.), (1969).Frontiers of Judicial Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayakawa, Takeo (1962). “Legal Science and Judicial Behavior, with Particular Reference to Civil Liberties in the Japanese Supreme Court.”Kobe University Law Review 2:1–27, as reprinted in Schubert (1964), pp. 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Bancroft, and T. C. Sinclair (1965).The Selection of Judges in Texas: An Exploratory Study. Houston: Public Affairs Research Center, University of Houston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, Thomas R. (1981). “Studying the Studies: Political Science Research on Judicial Politics, 1961–1980.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, April 15–18.

  • Herman, Theodor (1980). “WESTLAW: Computerized Legal Research Program of West Publishing Company.” In Eres (1980), pp. 157–162.

  • Hogarth, John (1971).Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, John (1972).Technical Appendices to Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: Center of Criminology, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. Woodford, Jr. (1981).Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interuniversity Consortium for Political Research. (1982).Guide to Resources and Services. Ann Arbor, Mich.: ICPSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawashima, Takeyoshi (1969). “Individualism in Decision-Making in the Supreme Court of Japan.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 103–121.

  • Kommers, Donald P. (1969). “The Federal Constitutional Court in the West German Political System.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (1969), pp. 73–132.

  • Kort, Fred (1957) “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the ‘Right to Counsel’ Cases.”American Political Science Review 51:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, Fred (1958) “Reply to Fisher's ‘Mathematical Analysis of Judicial Decisions.”American Political Science Review 52:339–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorf, Klaus (1980).Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritzer, Herbert M. (1978). “Political Correlates of the Behavior of Federal District Judges: A ‘Best Case’ Analysis.”Journal of Politics 40:25–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leege, David C., and Wayne L. Francis (1974).Political Research: Design, Measurement, and Analysis. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Mark S. (1977).Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison. Beverly Hills: Sage Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.”American Political Science Review 65:682–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madron, Thomas W. (1969).Small Group Methods and the Study of Politics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madron, Thomas W. (1982). “Computer Use in History and the Humanities.” Presented at Wesley Studies Conference, Oxford, July 30.

  • Marquardt, Ronald G., and Edward M. Wheat (1982). “Case Processing by Administrative Agencies: Administrative Law Judge Perceptions vs. Reality.” Presented at Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Diego, March 26.

  • McDavid, James C., and Brian Stipak (1981–82). “Simultaneous Scaling of Offense Seriousness and Sentence Severity Through Canonical Correlation Analysis.”Law and Society Review 16:147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowall, David et al. (1980).Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, Wayne (1982). “A Long-Range View of Litigators and Their Demands.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.

  • McIver, John P. (1976). “Scaling Judicial Decisions: The Panel Decisionmaking Process of the U.S. Courts of Appeals.”American Journal of Political Science 20:749–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, William P. (1982). “Spectral Analysis of United States Supreme Court Caseload, 1880–1979.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.

  • Morrison, Fred L. (1969). “The Swiss Federal Court: Judicial Decision-Making and Recruitment.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (1969), pp. 132–162.

  • Morrison, Fred L. (1973).Courts and the Judicial Process in England. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mott, Rodney L., Spencer D. Allbright, and Helen R. Semmerling (1933). “Judicial Personnel.”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 167:143–155, as reprinted in Schubert (1964), pp. 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Walter F., and Joseph Tanenhaus (1972).The Study of Public Law, New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1962). “Testing Empirical Generalizations in Legal Research.”Journal of Legal Education 15:365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1963). “Off-the-Bench Judicial Attitudes.” In Schubert (1963b), pp. 29–54.

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1969).The Legal Process from a Behavioral Perspective. Homewood: The Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Stuart S. (1974). “Multiple Correlation of Judicial Backgrounds and Decisions.”Florida State University Law Review 2:258–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, Peter F., James Eisenstein, and Roy B. Fleming (1982). “A Contextual Analysis of Decisionmaker Influences on Judicial Decisions: A ‘Best Case’ Analysis of Criminal Sentencing.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.

  • Paterson, Alan (1982).The Law Lords. London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, Sidney R. (1969). “A Scalogram Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1958–1967.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 293–334.

  • Pritchett, C. Herman (1948).The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, Doris Marie (1980).Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Stuart A. (1928).Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, David (1982). “Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis.”British Journal of Political Science 12:1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, John Paul et al. (1980).American Trial Judges. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samonte, Abelardo G. (1969). “The Philippine Supreme Court: A Study of Judicial Background Characteristics, Attitudes, and Decision-Making.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969), pp. 157–196.

  • Schmidhauser, John R. (1959). “The Justices of the Supreme Court: A Collective Portrait.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 3:1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhauser, John R. (1964).Constitutional Law in the Political Process. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1959).Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press and Bureau of Social and Political Research, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1962a). “The 1960–61 Term of the Supreme Court: A Psychometric Analysis.”American Political Science Review 56:90–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1962b). “Policy Without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game.”Stanford Law Review 14:284–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1962c). “A Solution to the Indeterminate Factorial Resolution of Thurstone and Degan's Study of the Supreme Court.”Behavioral Science 7:448–458, as reprinted in Schubert,Judicial Behavior, pp. 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1963a) “Judicial Attitudes and Voting Behavior: The 1961 Term of the United States Supreme Court.”Law and Contemporary Problems 28:100–142, as reprinted in Schubert,Judicial Behavior, pp. 548–579 with Appendix, “A Report and Analysis of the 1962 Term Prediction,” pp. 579–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (ed.) (1963b).Judicial Decision-Making. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1964).Judicial Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1965a). “Jackson's Judicial Philosophy: An Exploration in Value Analysis.”American Political Science Review 59:904–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1965b).The Judicial Mind: Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1966–1968). “Judicial Behavior.” In David A. Sills (ed.),International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Rev. ed.), New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1966b). “The High Court and the Supreme Court: Two Styles of Judicial Hierocracy.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1967). “Ideologies and Attitudes, Academic and Judicial.”Journal of Politics 29:3–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1968a). “Opinion Agreement among High Court Justices in Australia.”The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 4:2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1968b). “Political Ideology on the High Court.”Politics 3:25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1969a). “Two Causal Models of Decision-Making by the High Court of Australia.” In Schubert and Danelski (1969) pp. 335–366.

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1969b). “The Dimensions of Decisional Response: Opinion and Voting Behavior of the Australian High Court.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (eds.), (1969) pp. 163–195.

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1969c). “Judicial Attitudes and Policy-Making in the Dixon Court.”Osgoode Hall Law Journal 7 (October).

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1972). “Judicial Process and Behavior, 1963–1971.” In James A. Robinson (ed.),Political Science Annual: An International Review 3:73–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1974).The Judicial Mind Revisited: Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1977). “Political Culture and Judicial Ideology: Some Cross-Cultural and Subcultural Comparisons.”Comparative Political Studies 9:363–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1980). “Subcultural Effects on Judicial Behavior: A Comparative Analysis.”Journal of Politics 42:951–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, Glendon A. (1982). “Subcultures and Judicial Background: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee.

  • Schubert, Glendon A., and David J. Danelski (eds.) (1969).Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies in Political Decision-Making in the East and West. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1963a). “An Analysis of Judicial Attitudes in the Labor Relations Decisions of the Warren Court.”Journal of Politics 25:290–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1963b). “Warren Court Attitudes Toward Business.” In Schubert (1963b), pp. 79–108.

  • Spaeth, Harold J. (1979),Supreme Court Policy Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, Cassia, John Gruhl, and Susan Welch (1981–82). “The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A Re-Examination of an Unsettled Question.”Law and Society Review 16:71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, John D. (1968).Voting Patterns on the United States Supreme Court: Cases in Federalism, 1889–1959. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, Karlyn D. (1980). “LEXIS: Legal Research and Litigation Support.” In Eres (1980), pp. 149–156.

  • Stookey, John A. (1981). “Studying Appellate Court Decision Making: A Preliminary Overview and Analysis of an Alternative Paradigm.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Memphis.

  • Tanenhaus, Joseph, Martin Schick, and Matthew Muraskin (1963). “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Schubert (1963b).

  • Tanenhaus, Joseph (1966). “The Cumulative Scaling of Judicial Decisions,”Harvard Law Review 79:1583–1594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. Neal (1972). “Social Background and Voting Behavior in the Philippine Supreme Court.”Lawasia 3:317–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. Neal (1975). “Paths to the Bench in Britain: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Recruitment of a Judicial Elite.”Western Political Quarterly 28: 108–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C. Neal (1981). “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economic Decisions, 1946–1978.”American Political Science Review 75:355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teger, Stuart H., and Douglas Kosinski (1980). “The Cue Theory of Supreme Court Certiorari Jurisdiction: A Reconsideration.”Journal of Politics 42:834–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, Louis, and J. W. Degan (1951). “A Factorial Study of the Supreme Court.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 37:628–635 as reprinted in Schubert,Judicial Behavior, pp. 335–340.

  • Torgerson, Ulf. (1963). “The Role of the Supreme Court in the Norwegian Political System.” In Schubert (1963b), pp. 201–220.

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1969). “The Discriminant Function and a Theoretical Context for Its Use in Estimating the Votes of Judges.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (eds.),Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1970). “Dissent Behavior and the Social Background of Supreme Court Justices.”Journal of Politics 32:580–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1972). “The Decision to Grant Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision ‘On the Merits,’”Polity 4:429–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1973a). “The Longitudinal Behavior of Hugo Lafayette Black: Parabolic Support for Civil Liberties.”Florida State University Law Review 1:131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1973b). “Social Background as an Indicator to the Votes of Supreme Court Justices in Criminal Cases.”Midwest Journal of Political Science 17:622–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1978). “Selecting Cases for Supreme Court Review: An Underdog Model.”American Political Science Review 72:902–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1979a). “Parabolic Support of Civil Liberties Claims: The Case of William O. Douglas.”Journal of Politics 41:634–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1979b). “Parameters of Change in the Behavior of Supreme Court Justices.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Fort Worth, March 28–31.

  • Ulmer, S. Sidney (1982). “Exploring the Dissent Patterns of Eleven Chief Justices.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.

  • van Dunné, Jan M., Peter J. van Koppen, and Jan ten Kate (1981). “Personality Influences on Judicial Decision Making in the Netherlands.” Paper presented to the Meeting of the Research Committee for Comparative Judicial Studies of the International Political Science Association, Oxford, England.

  • Vines, Kenneth N. (1963). “The Selection of Judges in Louisiana.” In Vines and Herbert Jacob (eds.),Studies in Judicial Politics. New Orleans: Tulane Studies in Political Science, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinces, Kenneth N. (1969). “The Judicial Role in the American States: An Exploration.” In Grossman and Tanenhaus (eds.).,Frontiers of Judicial Research, pp. 461–485.

  • Vines, Kenneth N. (1970). “Judicial Behavior Research.” In Michael Haas and Henry S. Kariel (eds.),Approaches to the Study of Political Science. Scranton: Chandler Publishing Company, pp. 125–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vines, Kenneth N., and Herbert Jacob (1963).Studies in Judicial Politics. New Orleans: Tulane Studies in Political Science, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner, Manfred, Lettie M. Wenner, and V. Eugene Flango (1978). “Austrian and Swiss Judges: A Comparative Study.”Comparative Politics 10:499–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, John (1974). “Political Orientations, Social Backgrounds, and Role Perceptions of State Supreme Court Justices.”Western Political Quarterly 27:239–248.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, North Texas State University, USA

    C. Neal Tate

Authors
  1. C. Neal Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tate, C.N. The methodology of judicial behavior research: A review and critique. Polit Behav 5, 51–82 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989986

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989986

Keywords

Search

Navigation