IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i3p448-470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial reasoning, individual cultural types, and support for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Brough
  • Li‐Yin Liu
  • Yao‐Yuan Yeh

Abstract

With heated political and public debate over government vaccine mandates, COVID‐19 offers an opportunity to better understand the role of policy justifications on people's perceptions towards a policy. Through this study, we aim to move beyond the partisan and ideological arguments for and against vaccine mandates to illustrate how individuals' worldviews, based on Cultural Theory, can better explain why people have different perceptions towards vaccine mandates. Using the judiciary and judicial reasoning as the setting, and controlling for individuals' preexisting opinion on COVID‐19 vaccines, we hypothesize that people who prefer vaccine mandates will agree with judicial reasoning that appeals towards individualistic and hierarchical statements. Additionally, we hypothesize that those who have confidence in the judiciary will agree with individualistic and hierarchical statements. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results confirm the hypotheses. 伴随政府疫苗强制令的激烈政治辩论和公众辩论，2019冠状病毒病(COVID‐19)提供了一个机会，以更好地理解政策理由对政策感知的影响。通过本研究，我们不局限于那些支持或反对疫苗强制令的党派争论及意识形态争论，旨在阐明个人世界观 (基于文化理论)如何更好地解释为何人们对疫苗强制令有不同的看法。以司法部门及司法推理为背景，同时控制个人对COVID‐19疫苗的预先看法，我们假设，偏好疫苗强制令的个人会同意诉诸个人主义及等级式陈述的司法推理。此外，我们假设，那些对司法机构有信心的人会同意个人主义及等级式陈述。为了检验该假设，我们通过亚马逊土耳其机器人(Amazon Mechanical Turk)进行了联合调查实验。结果证实了假设。. Con un acalorado debate político y público sobre los mandatos gubernamentales de vacunación, la COVID‐19 ofrece una oportunidad para comprender mejor el papel de las justificaciones de las políticas en las percepciones de las personas sobre una política. A través de este estudio, pretendemos ir más allá de los argumentos partidistas e ideológicos a favor y en contra de los mandatos de vacunas para ilustrar cómo las visiones del mundo de los individuos, basadas en la teoría cultural, pueden explicar mejor por qué las personas tienen diferentes percepciones sobre los mandatos de vacunas. Utilizando el poder judicial y el razonamiento judicial como escenario, y controlando la opinión preexistente de los individuos sobre las vacunas COVID‐19, planteamos la hipótesis de que las personas que prefieren mandatos de vacunación estarán de acuerdo con el razonamiento judicial que apela a declaraciones individualistas y jerárquicas. Además, planteamos la hipótesis de que quienes tienen confianza en el poder judicial estarán de acuerdo con declaraciones individualistas y jerárquicas. Para probar esta hipótesis, llevamos a cabo un experimento de encuesta conjunto a través de Amazon Mechanical Turk. Los resultados confirman las hipótesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Brough & Li‐Yin Liu & Yao‐Yuan Yeh, 2024. "Judicial reasoning, individual cultural types, and support for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(3), pages 448-470, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:3:p:448-470
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12579
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12579?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartels, Brandon L., 2009. "The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(3), pages 474-495, August.
    2. Charles R. Shipan, 2008. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 55-76, March.
    3. Brendon Swedlow, 2017. "Three Cultural Boundaries of Science, Institutions, and Policy: A Cultural Theory of Coproduction, Boundary-Work, and Change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(6), pages 827-853, November.
    4. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    5. Frymer, Paul, 2003. "Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Unions, 1935–85," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(3), pages 483-499, August.
    6. Stephen P. Nicholson & Thomas G. Hansford, 2014. "Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 620-636, July.
    7. Benjamin Davy, 2021. "Social Distancing and Cultural Bias," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 87(2), pages 159-166, April.
    8. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    9. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    10. Richards, Mark J. & Kritzer, Herbert M., 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 305-320, June.
    11. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    12. Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 557-565, June.
    13. Kennedy, Ryan & Clifford, Scott & Burleigh, Tyler & Waggoner, Philip D. & Jewell, Ryan & Winter, Nicholas J. G., 2020. "The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 614-629, October.
    14. Geoboo Song, 2014. "Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 541-555, March.
    15. Brandon L. Bartels & Christopher D. Johnston, 2013. "On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 184-199, January.
    16. James L. Gibson, 2007. "The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 507-538, November.
    17. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow & Marcus W. Mayorga, 2020. "Cultural theory and cultural cognition theory survey measures: confirmatory factoring and predictive validity of factor scores for judged risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(11), pages 1467-1490, November.
    18. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    19. Li‐Yin Liu, 2018. "How Radical Is Too Radical? Public Perception of Taiwanese Environmental Nonprofit Organizations’ Activism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1426-1445, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meng Yuan & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Chinese cultural biases, value congruence, and support for and compliance with protective policies during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(3), pages 415-447, May.
    2. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Yonatan Lupu & James H. Fowler, 2013. "Strategic Citations to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 151-186.
    5. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    6. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    7. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Mindock, Maxwell R. & Waddell, Glen R., 2019. "Vote Influence in Group Decision-Making: The Changing Role of Justices' Peers on the Supreme Court," IZA Discussion Papers 12317, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    10. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    11. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    13. Thora Giallouri & Elli Menounou, 2024. "Breaking the bank: Personal financial interests of Supreme Court justices and institutional legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1164-1179, July.
    14. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    15. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    17. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    18. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    19. Sobotka, Tagart Cain & Stewart, Sheridan A., 2020. "Stereotyping and the opioid epidemic: A conjoint analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    20. Su Thet Hninn & Keisuke Kawata & Shinji Kaneko & Yuichiro Yoshida, 2016. "A nonparametric welfare analysis on water quality improvement of the floating people on Inlay Lake via a randomized conjoint field experiment," IDEC DP2 Series 6-2, Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:3:p:448-470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.