James W. Stoutenborough

Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.

Psychometric and demographic predictors of the perceived risk of terrorist threats and the willingness to pay for terrorism risk management programs

A 2009 national telephone survey of 924 U.S. adults assessed perceptions of terrorism and homeland security issues. Respondents rated severity of effects, level of understanding, number affected, and likelihood of four terrorist threats: poisoned water supply; explosion of a small nuclear device in a major U.S. city; an airplane attack similar to 9/11; and explosion of a bomb in a building, train, subway, or highway. Respondents rated perceived risk and willingness to pay (WTP) for dealing with each threat. Demographic, attitudinal, and party affiliation data were collected. Respondents rated bomb as highest in perceived risk but gave the highest WTP ratings to nuclear device. For both perceived risk and WTP, psychometric variables were far stronger predictors than were demographic ones. OLS regression analyses using both types of variables to predict perceived risk found only two significant demographic predictors for any threat--Democrat (a negative predictor for bomb) and white male (a significant positive predictor for airline attack). In contrast, among psychometric variables, severity, number affected, and likelihood were predictors of all four threats and level of understanding was a predictor for one. For WTP, education was a negative predictor for three threats; no other demographic variables were significant predictors for any threat. Among psychometric variables, perceived risk and number affected were positive predictors of WTP for all four threats; severity and likelihood were predictors for three; level of understanding was a significant predictor for two.

Public Attitudes toward Water Management and Drought in the United States

Water management is becoming increasingly salient as climate change continues to alter the environment, resulting in more severe and frequent droughts. To address water management issues, large-scale projects may be needed. However, public support is often a prerequisite for governments at all levels to enact such projects. Given the growing importance of these issues, there are few recent studies that explore public attitudes, preferences, and risk assessments about water-related resource allocations. Will the public act to constrain the actions of their elected officials? Is the public ready to begin considering policies, regulations, and expenditures that address the potential impacts of increased drought frequency on local, state and national water resources? This research reports the results of two national public opinion surveys in the United States that focused on water management and drought issues. The results indicate that the public is willing to support government efforts to manage water, but not if they negatively affect the environment or agriculture.

The Influence of Specific Risk Perceptions on Public Policy Support An Examination of Energy Policy

A great deal of research has been dedicated to understanding the relationship of public preferences to public policy. Much of this literature, though, does not account for risk perception, an important characteristic that affects individuals’ preferences. In terms of policy, those who perceive high risk in association with a particular issue should be more likely to oppose policies that would increase that risk, and, conversely, support policies that would decrease this risk. In this article, we examine the role of specific risk perceptions related to nuclear, coal, and renewable sources of energy on related policy preferences. Controlling for the influence of knowledge and several specific attitudinal indicators, we find that risk perceptions are strong predictors of energy policy preferences.

Are all risk perceptions created equal? Comparing general risk assessments and specific risk assessments associated with climate change

ABSTRACT For policy-making to address public risk perceptions effectively, policy-makers must have a clear understanding of the nature of public risks. Public opinion polls regularly solicit perceptions of risk toward a variety of topics. These assessments, though, tend to be general with no specificity offered for a nuanced interpretation. Yet, there is good reason to assume that risk perceptions are not based on the same criteria. If true, policy-makers may be unable to address risks adequately without a better understanding of the drivers of risk perceptions. This project focuses on two primary research questions: (1) Does the public weigh the risk associated with global climate change differently in specific sub-domains? (2) If so, which climate change sub-domains are various members of the public most concerned about when offering a general assessment of global climate change risk? We assess public risk perceptions of climate change in three sub-domains—public health, economic development, and environment—and find that two of the three sub-domains are predictors of a general assessment of risk.

Public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court: A new look at the impact of Court decisions

Abstract Judicial scholars have long debated the notion that Court decisions can influence the publics attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court. We engage this literature by introducing new dimensions to existing theory for predicting the impact of Court decisions on public confidence in the Court and by introducing innovative methods to test our hypotheses. We begin our analysis by examining the relationship between specific Court decisions and public confidence with aggregate time series data. Our analysis then shifts to an examination of individual-level survey data to examine the same hypotheses. Our results indicate that specific decisions can have a significant positive and negative impact on individual-level confidence in the Court. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for the theoretical and methodological debates over the influence of Court decisions on public confidence.

How to win friends and influence people: climate scientists’ perspectives on their relationship with and influence on government officials

The use of scientific information in the policy-making process is prevalent in today’s society, and political figures frequently consult scientists and experts when considering complex issues like climate change. While policy process literature concerning agenda setting and policy networks, such as epistemic communities and advocacy coalitions, considers the role of scientists in policymaking, very little work has provided insight into the relative influence and perceived relationships between scientists and policymakers. The ability of scientists and policymakers to work together has important implications for policy outcomes. We explore individual scientist’s perceptions of the collective influence the scientific community has on policymaking, in addition to perceptions of relationships between scientists and policymakers. We suggest that a number of factors are relevant including trust, contact, attitudes, specialisation and demographics. Our findings indicate that, from scientists’ perspectives, contact with policymakers, trust and attitudes about climate change play a significant role in shaping their relationship with policymakers.

Content matters: Stakeholder assessment of river stories or river science

Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders’ understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration. Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think about the river’s restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders.

Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?

Public discourse on climate change often refers to possible bias among climate scientists as a rationale for limited climate policy action by the United States. Part of this discussion is the association of scientists with environmental interest groups and whether such affiliations facilitate the perception that climate scientists lack objectivity. While surveys suggest that some climate scientists disapprove of affiliations with interest groups, recent research indicates that climate scientists are quite likely to be involved with environmental organizations. This paper compares the affiliations of scientists and the general public to discern whether scientists are uniquely likely to affiliate with interest groups or they simply share characteristics common to the public who also affiliate with these organizations. Our findings suggest that climate scientists are no more likely to donate money, but are less likely to sign a petition or attend a demonstration, when controlling for other factors. These results strengthen our understanding of the affiliations between scientists and interest groups and hold implications for the accuracy of popular perceptions of climate scientists.