Replication data for: Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy (doi:10.7910/DVN/26586)

View:

Part 1: Document Description
Part 2: Study Description
Part 5: Other Study-Related Materials
Entire Codebook

(external link)

Document Description

Citation

Title:

Replication data for: Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

Identification Number:

doi:10.7910/DVN/26586

Distributor:

Harvard Dataverse

Date of Distribution:

2014-06-25

Version:

2

Bibliographic Citation:

Christenson, Dino; Glick, David, 2014, "Replication data for: Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26586, Harvard Dataverse, V2

Study Description

Citation

Title:

Replication data for: Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

Identification Number:

doi:10.7910/DVN/26586

Authoring Entity:

Christenson, Dino (Boston University)

Glick, David (Boston University)

Producer:

Dino Christenson

Distributor:

Harvard Dataverse

Access Authority:

Dino Christenson

Depositor:

Dino Christenson

Date of Deposit:

2014-06-25

Date of Distribution:

2014

Holdings Information:

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26586

Study Scope

Keywords:

Social Sciences, Supreme Court, Public opinion, Health care reform, Government legitimacy, Ideology

Topic Classification:

Judicial behavior

Abstract:

The 2012 challenge to the Affordable Care Act was an unusual opportunity for people to form or reassess opinions about the Supreme Court. We utilize panel data coupled with as-if random assignment to reports that Chief Justice Roberts’ decision was politically motivated to investigate the microfoundations of the Court’s legitimacy. Specifically, we test the effects of changes in individuals’ ideological congruence with the Court and exposure to the non-legalistic account of the decision. We find that both affect perceptions of the Court’s legitimacy. Moreover, we show that these mechanisms interact in important ways and that prior beliefs that the Court is a legalistic institution magnify the effect of updating ones ideological proximity to the Court. While we demonstrate that individuals can and did update their views for multiple reasons, we also highlight constraints which allow for aggregate stability in spite of individual level change.

Time Period:

2012-2012

Date of Collection:

2012-2012

Country:

United States

Geographic Coverage:

National

Kind of Data:

Individual level panel (repeated measure) survey

Notes:

Version Date: 2014Version Text: 1

Methodology and Processing

Sources Statement

Data Access

Notes:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0">CC0 1.0</a>

Other Study Description Materials

Related Materials

Article, appendix, replication code

Related Publications

Citation

Title:

Christenson, Dino P., and David M. Glick. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” <i>American Journal of Political Science</i> 59 (2): 403-418.

Identification Number:

10.1111/ajps.12150

Bibliographic Citation:

Christenson, Dino P., and David M. Glick. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” <i>American Journal of Political Science</i> 59 (2): 403-418.

Other Study-Related Materials

Label:

Legitimacy_Microfoundations_AJPS_Replication.csv

Text:

replication data in CSV

Notes:

text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Other Study-Related Materials

Label:

roberts_expt_models_AJPS_replication.R

Text:

replication code in R

Notes:

text/plain; charset=UTF-8