The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court
Abstract
The Supreme Court, like all political institutions, requires some minimal level of support because, as the high bench performs its political and constitutional roles, the justices must on occasion stand against the winds of public opinion. With data from a recent national survey, we reexamine the levels, sources, and explanations of public support for the Supreme Court. Since racial differences in attitudes toward the Court are so great, we focus here only on the attitudes of white U.S. citizens. Our purposes are both substantive and methodological. On the substantive front, we examine changes in the etiology of support. We investigate the traditional explanations of diffuse support, but, more important, we introduce and evaluate the power of a new set of variables, political values. These political values do an uncommonly good job of predicting attitudes toward the Court. In addition, we devote particular attention to the important role of as supporters of the Court. These leaders relate to the Court in a fashion very different from that of the mass public. On the methodological front, we offer an alternative means of thinking about and capturing diffuse support for the Court among the mass public. We close with speculations about the process by which diffuse support for the Court changes over time and, more generally, the implications of attitudes among the mass public and opinion leaders for the functioning of the Supreme Court.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Political Relevance of Political Trust
Hetherington, M. J. (1998) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586304 · Cited by 1,539
Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082973 · Cited by 1,316
On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public
Bartels, B. L., & Johnston, C. D. (2013) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x · Cited by 349
The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support
Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082430 · Cited by 310
Self-citationThe Methodology of Necessary Conditions
Braumoeller, B. F., & Goertz, G. (2000) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2669285 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1992-08
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 635
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2608417329
- Cited by
- 650
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 80.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2111585
- The paper
- Caldeira, G. A., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.