Page 1 of 18
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 8
Publication Date: August 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.118.17423.
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal
Level. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the
United States Through the Lens of Construal Level
Mykaela L. Chang
Head-Royce School
ABSTRACT
Power dynamics exist among the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Through the
lens of construal level, the justices’ psychological distance can indicate power,
which can ultimately affect the decision-making process on case deliberation. This
research examines power dynamics arising from tenure, gender, and political
ideology of the justices, and the type of opinion written, through language conveyed
in written opinions. I find that tenure, gender and political ideology have some
association with abstraction, certainty, positive affect and/or future orientation,
suggesting that justices have predictable behavioral implications stemming from
their power level. Results for the type of opinions show significance for the opposite
prediction, with concurring and dissenting opinions exhibiting more abstract,
certain and positive. Exploring power dynamics among the justices helps to unpack
the decision-making process in the High Court.
Keywords: Power dynamics in the Supreme Court, Construal level Theory, political
ideology, types of opinions, tenure
INTRODUCTION
The recent political sphere of the United States is punctuated by changes brought on by the
proliferation of social media influence and news networks, augmented channels of political
extremists, and enhanced levels of political polarization. One factor that is galvanizing these
occurrences is the long-lasting consequences stemming from Supreme Court decisions.
Decisions made by nine individuals on the nation’s highest court dictate the final say in how a
law can be applied and interpreted, and thus what social actions are or are not permitted in the
eyes of the legal system. It has long been acknowledged that these nine individuals as a
collective entity hold tremendous power. These nine justices have the power and reach to
directly impact hundreds of millions of citizens. Each Supreme Court justice’s vote has the same
weight and percentage of the total tally. However, this does not equate to all nine justices having
the same level of power on the Court. Power is contextual, and differs across environments.
Thus, the justices have differing levels of power as they deliberate and decide on cases. In
essence, it is imperative to explore the power dynamics among these nine justices rather than
simply treating the Court as one single entity. Exploring power dynamics among the justices
helps to unpack the decision-making process in the High Court, particularly debunking the
common belief that political ideologies alone determine the outcome of judicial decisions.
The Court composition changes when justices enter and exit the bench. The deaths and
retirements of liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy and their subsequent
replacements with conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh shifted the
Court majority from liberal-leaning to a conservative majority. The current Supreme Court is
Page 2 of 18
223
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
the most conservative Court in decades, marking a stark shift in the direction of some social
norms and acceptances. For example, the decision made in the seminal Dobbs v. Jackson
Womens’ Health Organization case stipulated that the right to an abortion past six weeks was
not protected by the United States Constitution. This decision was made by a 6-3 split along
ideological party lines, with the conservative justices comprising the majority. This single
decision, made by nine individuals, affected the reproductive rights of millions of women and
future citizens, overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that rendered abortions legal in
this country. In contrast, the Obergefell v. Hodges case legalized same-sex marriage in a 5-4 vote.
Justice Kennedy, a conservative justice, sided with the liberal justices and even wrote the
majority opinion.
The Court is also dynamic when different cases are deliberated, with both conservative and
liberal justices voting against their party ideologies. While some cases are decided quite clearly
along ideological lines, others go against a justice’s political ideology. Justice John Roberts, a
conservative, voted to uphold the Obamacare policy, in line with the liberal justices bloc, in a
controversial 5-4 vote. Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, has voted alongside
liberal justices twelve times in 5-4 votes since liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined the Court in
2010 (Feldman, 2024). Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch voted
alongside the liberal justices in the Allen v. Milligan case, ruling that the district plan of Alabama
was racially gerrymandering. Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch’s decision overruled their own
previous decisions in the Rucho v. Common Cause case. In that case, they ruled that the Supreme
Court was not to make political decisions involving gerrymandering (Feldman, 2024). Liberal
justices also routinely defy their own political ideology to join conservative majorities. For
example, Justice Ginsburg dissented in the Jones v. United States case about drug crime
sentencing, alongside conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia.
Dynamics in the courtroom is akin to dynamics in organizations, particularly within the
workings of teams. The nine Supreme Court justices collectively make decisions, with nine
votes weighted equally. One justice alone cannot decide whether a law is constitutional or
unconstitutional. The Court, fundamentally, is a team of people who work together to make
decisions, much like organizational agents convene in teams to make decisions. Power
dynamics not only affect decision-making on the Supreme Court, but they also provide a lens to
understand team decision-making across various organizational functions.
Construal Level, Psychological Distance, and Power
Decision-making, whether in judicial cases or organizations, requires selection and
interpretation of information, a process dependent upon an individual’s mental representation
(Cho, 1996). Construal Level theory argues that this mental representation is determined by
psychological distance, which is the subjective experience that something is close or far away
from oneself (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Construal level refers to the ways that people encode
and retrieve information, which can differ across contexts due to varying mental
representations from abstract and high level to concrete and low level (Smith & Trope, 2006).
As psychological distance increases, we interpret - or construe - information in an abstract way.
As psychological distance decreases, on the other hand, we construe information in a more
detailed or concrete way. Abstract construal is relatively broad and general, with a distal focus.
Detailed construal, in contrast, is relatively concrete, detailed with a proximal focus
(Wiesenfeld et al., 2017).
Page 3 of 18
224
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Recent literature shows that power can be represented through psychological distance. In a
study priming power, Smith and Trope found that those with power feel distinct, independent
and separate from others, and that those with elevated power are associated with abstraction
across various tasks (Smith & Trope, 2006). In support of the connection between increased
power and increased psychological distance is the study that directly explored power and
distance, finding that elevated power increases social distance from others (Lammers et al.,
2012). More recent evidence supports the notion that power is an antecedent to construal level
(Guinote, 2007; Huang et al., 2011). A study using data from Congress members’ social media
posts on X/Twitter and Facebook found that posts by conservative Congress members
contained more abstract language than liberal Congress people (Jost & Sterling, 2020). In
particular, the results support the idea that liberal-leaning Congress members and their staff
process information with less psychological distance. In another study using real-time quotes
related to 9/11 events from individuals of varying levels of positional power, Magee et al. found
that power, as denoted by psychological distance, is associated with language that is more
abstract, more certain and has more positive valence (Magee et al., 2010). Those who have less
positional power speak with more detail, uncertainty and negative affect.
Power as an antecedent to construal level leads to differing abstraction level, certainty,
temporal distance, and affective valence (Smith & Galinsky, 2010; Magee et al., 2010).
Individuals with less amounts of power, then, will interpret the same situation with less
psychological distance compared to those with more power (Wakslak et al., 2014; Smith &
Trope, 2006). Construal Level Theory posits psychological distance to impact whether
information is understood in more abstract, certain, positive, and future-oriented ways
(Wakslak et al., 2014). This current study follows this framework to explore power dynamics
of the Supreme Court Justices through their construal level, particularly in the level of
abstraction, certainty, valence and future orientation in their written opinions.
Abstraction
Construal level is associated with differing levels of abstraction according to the Construal Level
Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Individuals with high construal levels are characterized as
giving general summaries and big-picture descriptions of an event, whereas low construal
levels are more concrete and detail-oriented (Medin & Ortony, 1989). High construal level
involves broad, open-minded thinking and global-scale interpretations of given information;
low construal levels are characterized as more narrow (Liberman & Foster, 2009). Power is
associated with psychological distance such that those with elevated power are more
psychologically distant compared with those with lower power. Thus, the more psychologically
distant and higher power people are likely to construe information in a more abstract manner.
For example, consider two individuals, a high-up executive and her subordinate, who are called
upon to give a recap of a team meeting. The executive summarizes the main takeaway from the
meeting as the team doing a “good job” due to the consistently high profit stemming from their
marketing tactics and the “bright future” ahead for the team, whereas the subordinate details
the company’s profits increased one hundred forty-seven thousand dollars and recently had an
ad put across four different marketing channels. The subordinate gives the specific statistics
regarding profits and marketing strategies, focusing on present-day details. The executive, on
the other hand, provides a general, broad takeaway, and goes beyond the immediate concrete
details to discuss a future vision. Individuals with high construal level are able to get past the
immediate details and scenarios to talk about the overarching picture (Semin & Fiedler, 1988).
Page 4 of 18
225
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
Extant literature provides support for the association of elevated power and abstraction.
Language is a medium for one’s cognition, thus how one speaks is a behavioral implication of
power (Jacobi & Schweers, 2017). Using real-time quotes of people during the 9/11 crisis,
scholars found that those with power spoke in a more abstract manner during the 9/11 crisis,
while those with lower power spoke with more detail (Magee et al., 2010). Further, abstraction
and details in communication affect perception by message recipients. One study found that
pronoun changes (from “we” to “you”) in the language of political campaigns and slogans
affected recipient’s perception of the candidate, and thus voter behavior. The use of “we” is a
more concrete construal, whereas the word “you” represents a more abstract construal. Results
from the study showed that the concrete message of “we” led to more positive voter response
(Chou & Yeh, 2018). Although not specified in the study, the concrete “we” denotes a closer
psychological distance between the candidate and voter, and thus a less pronounced power
dynamic. That is, the candidate lowers the power level by utilizing the more concrete “we”
rather than the abstract “you.” Using concrete pronouns places the potential voter as proximal
to the candidate, creating a shorter psychological distance (Chou & Yeh, 2018).
Gender power dynamics have long been shown to exist in organizations and beyond, providing
yet more evidence for correlation between power and abstraction. Men compared to women
have more accessibility to and benefit more from access to resources, with control of resources
being a definition of power (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974). Thus, men in
general have more power across organizational contexts than women. If men in general have
more power, then their communication is more abstract. Support for this assertion came from
a study looking at the speech of male and female congressional members over a 6-year period.
The authors found that female congressional members from both the Senate and the House of
Representatives spoke more concretely than the male members, who spoke in a more abstract
manner (Joshi et al., 2020).
Certainty
Certainty is defined as levels of confidence about a given scenario and accurately predicting
what would happen next (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Individuals with more power make
decisions with higher certainty than individuals with lower levels of psychological distance
(Nussbaum et al., 2006). Individuals who exhibit differential amounts of certainty are
discovered to process information more or less systematically (Weary & Jacobson, 1997). For
example, individuals who have less certainty behave with more attention, detail-orientation,
and higher reasoning than people with higher certainty (Weary & Jacobson, 1997). Tiendens
and Linton (2001) found that individuals make predictions with greater certainty if they
reported being in mental states of happiness and satisfaction than when under states of hope. I
assert that a similar phenomenon occurs in the frame of Construal Level Theory (CLT). Higher
psychological distance predicts construals that tend to exclude details beyond the surface level
and increase in certainty. This leads to the tenet of CLT that higher levels of power lead to more
abstraction, and the corollary that lower levels of power lead to more details (Nussbaum et al.,
2006). Further, CLT is consistent with Weary and Jacobsens’ 1997 findings that individuals with
higher power interpret a situation with more certainty, which is correlated with less attention
to detail-oriented reasoning. For example, a CEO with legitimate power will include fewer
details in her annual shareholder report and address the audience with more certainty,
whereas a low-level employee would give more details about revenue, salaries, and profits with
Page 5 of 18
226
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
less certainty in a typical team meeting. Thus, a larger psychological distance contributes to
both certainty and abstraction of high-powered individuals due to a heightened power.
Valence (Positive/Negative Affect)
CLT theorizes that the valence, or the degree of positive or negative affect, of an individual
depends on how he or she interprets information. According to CLT, valence depends on
psychological distance and, subsequently, abstraction, so that how abstractly or concretely an
individual understands a given situation impacts how positively or negatively they see it
(Liberman & Trope, 2008; Magee et al., 2010). Magee et al. found that those with higher power
spoke with more positive valence, and those with lower power spoke with more negative
valence, even after controlling for temporal distance, geographic distance of the speaker, and
motivation for impression management (Magee et al., 2010).
In the context of the Supreme Court, a justice with high construal level will construe a situation
more generally, leading to a more positive interpretation of information and thus exuding more
positive affect in his or her cognition. A justice with low construal level focuses on the details,
leading to a more negative interpretation of information and thus a more negative affect in his
or her cognition. Therefore, justices who communicate with more positive affect will have a
larger psychological distance and more power.
Temporal Distance (Future or Present-Orientation)
Power affects one’s temporal distance, or the degree of future or present orientation. Temporal
distance is positively correlated to interpreting events more broadly and with its relevance to
achieving a goal instead of noting specific details. Individuals with low construal levels use
concrete language to describe situations in a nearer time frame, and thus are more present- oriented (Trope & Liberman, 2003). In addition, high psychological distance leads to a
preference for distant-future situations due to high construal levels being used to represent
distant-future events, whereas low construal individuals put more value on near-future events
(Trope & Liberman, 2003). Temporal distance is shown to influence judgment and decision- making because of how individuals interpret future events. Individuals with a future
orientation represent an event with more abstract details, and individuals with a present
orientation constitute an event with more concrete details. Liberman, Sagristano, and Trope
(2002) tested temporal distance by having participants visualize different scenarios (i.e. a
vacation to visit a friend in New York and going camping), and sort a batch of items into as many
groups as possible. It was found that the participants imagined a scenario in the far-future with
higher degrees of abstraction, and they grouped the items into fewer groups (Liberman et al.,
2002). When applied to the Supreme Court, temporal distance impacts how abstractly a justice
writes their opinions on cases. An opinion with a high construal level would include vague
details, and focus on the future. Individuals interpret information with higher degrees of
abstraction correlated with high construal levels to describe situations in the distant future.
Justices with more power, then, are more future oriented while justices with lower power are
more present focused.
Discerning Power Through Tenure, Gender, Political Ideology and Type on Opinions
Gender, political ideology, tenure, and type of opinion are posited to affect power dynamics in
the Supreme Court. Specifically, I hypothesize that these four factors have an effect on the
proxies of power - abstraction, certainty, positive affect, and future orientation. The hypotheses
Page 6 of 18
227
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
predict the level of abstraction, certainty, valence, and future orientation of the Supreme Court
Justices in written opinions.
Tenure
Justices are nominated and confirmed for the Supreme Court at different times, leading to a
wide variance for tenure on the High Court. The longest serving justice, Clarence Thomas, has
been on the Court for thirty-two years. The most junior justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has been
on the High Court for only two years. Newer justices are often tasked with fewer and less
important opinions than justices with longer tenure (Slotnick, 1979). Further, differences in
experience may contribute to dynamics regarding authority and power. The justices with the
most time on the Supreme Court may be more acclimatized to the inner workings of the Court
function, and have higher levels of confidence that lead them to interpret information more
abstractly. Recent research shows that differences in tenure affect how often justices interrupt
each other during oral arguments and the number of words each justice speaks between
justices in their first two terms, with more interruption and more words spoken by senior
justices (Houston et al., 2021). However, extant research does not explore whether the
language is more concrete or abstract, or whether abstract and concrete language impacts
Supreme Court opinions. Justices with longer tenure on the court should have more power and
thus communicate with more abstraction, certainty, positive affect and future oriented than
more junior justices. The following hypotheses are proposed:
• Hypothesis 1a. Tenure of the justice is positively correlated with the degree of
abstraction of written opinions.
• Hypothesis 1b. Tenure of the justice is positively correlated with the degree of certainty
of written opinions.
• Hypothesis 1c. Tenure of the justice positively correlated with the degree of positive
affect of written opinions.
• Hypothesis 1d. Tenure of the justice is positively correlated with the degree of future
orientation of written opinions.
Political Ideology
Political ideology, or the set of political beliefs that often lean conservative or liberal, of the
justice will impact how he or she communicates. The majority of the Supreme Court is held by
conservative justices in the current court. There are six conservative justices on the Court, and
three liberal justices. Supreme Court decisions have become increasingly polarized, with the
rate of justices voting along ideological lines increasing from 1953 to 2021 (Thomson-DeVeaux
& Bronner, 2022). The political ideology of each Supreme Court justice is measured using the
Martin-Quinn scores of political ideology (Farnsworth, 2007; Epstein et al., 2012). The scores
range from -6 being the most liberally-oriented justice, and +6 being the most conservative- oriented justices. While the Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, the majority of the American
public is liberal and moderate, a stark contrast from the political climate of the Court (Saad,
2022). The political climate of the American public has become more liberal in the last 50 years,
according to a 2021 study that analyzed citizen attitudes of 282 social variables (Hout, 2021).
The Court becoming increasingly conservative showcases a misalignment with the citizens.
Citizen support drives political success, and the American public aligns more with the liberal
justices’ political ideology than the overall political climate of the Supreme Court (Trumbull,
2012). In other words, the political ideology of the masses dictates the powerful on the Court,
Page 8 of 18
229
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
or the most senior justice. Multiple dissenting opinions can be written by different justices who
are in dissent. A fourth type of opinion - per curiam - are decisions made on the entire court
rather than specific justices. These types of opinions are not associated with particular authors,
and thus are omitted in this study.
I propose that the power level is dependent on the type of opinion. Majority and concurring
opinions are posited to exhibit the most power, as these opinions reflect decisions on the
“winning” side. The Supreme Court decisions have the final say on a particular case, with the
enforcement of law subsequently being carried out using the logic of the majority and
concurring opinions. Concurring opinions still belong on the “winning” side though they differ
in their decision logic. Concurring opinions, thus, also evince power as they both win and are
given a platform to express divergent opinions that are followed by law. Dissenting opinions
are written by the justices on the “losing” side. While majority and concurring opinions dictate
how a law should be followed, dissenting opinions only allow for statements of disagreement
with the ruling without any stipulation of how a law stands. Dissenting opinions, thus, are often
rallying cries against the winning decision without much “teeth” in the law of the land.
Dissenting opinions are posited to have the lowest power level. I propose the following:
• Hypothesis 4a. The majority and concurring opinions are more abstract than dissenting
opinions.
• Hypothesis 4b. The majority and concurring opinions are more certain than dissenting
opinions.
• Hypothesis 4c. The majority and concurring opinions are written with more positive
affect than dissenting opinions.
• Hypothesis 4d. The majority and concurring opinions are written with more positive
affect than dissenting opinions.
METHODOLOGY
The dataset consists of written opinions from the Supreme Court completed after oral
argument from a three-year period with terms in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Supreme Court
opinions data was taken from the official Supreme Court government website, and the opinions
are in slip opinion format. This format is the as-filed versions of opinions and are certified for
publication without enhancement editing or correction. The use of written opinions has the
ability to determine dynamics within the Supreme Court because the language each opinion
uses is a representation of the cognition and thinking of the justice. The Supreme Court has a
profound impact on all matters from civil rights to the outcome of elections, with the 2024
elections being influenced by their recent decision to rule that former presidents being
prosecuted for matters central to their office unconstitutional in the Trump v. United States case.
The justice’s written opinion on the Trump v. United States case is a representation of their oral
argument, and is further backed by their name on federal documents. Supreme Court opinions
are public record, and any citizen may access it. Analyzing Supreme Court opinions has the
ability to predict future decisions using easily accessible resources. I collected 161 majority
opinions, 127 concurring opinions, and 137 dissenting opinions. The 25 per curiam opinions
are omitted because the authors of the opinions are anonymous. The total number of opinions
analyzed is 425. I utilized Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) computerized text analysis
software, which was created by Pennebacker, Booth, and Francis, to analyze the Supreme Court
written opinions (Pennebacker et al., 2007). LIWC is a tested and reliable dictionary for text
Page 9 of 18
230
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
analysis (Joshi et al., 2020; McHaney et al., 2018; Ballingrud, 2021). I compiled measures of
abstraction, certainty, valence, and temporal distance from the LIWC dictionary, the absolutist
dictionary, and the General Inquirer dictionary. The LIWC dictionary was used to measure
valence and temporal distance. Valence was measured with the LIWC value “tone_pos”, and the
dictionary value included 1,020 words for positive tone, such as “good”, "well”, "new”, and
“love” (Boyd et al., 2022). Temporal distance was measured with the LIWC dictionary value
“future”, and the dictionary includes 138 words that measure future focus in a text, such as
“will”, “going to”, “have to”, and “may” (Boyd et al., 2022). The measure for certainty comes from
the absolutist dictionary compiled by Al-Mosaiwi and Johnstone. The absolutist dictionary uses
LIWC text software to calculate the percent frequency of certain words used to measure how
absolute and certain a given text is (Al-Mosaiwi & Johnstone, 2018). The General Inquirer
dictionary was used to give a measure for abstract thinking. Seih, Beier, and Pennebacker in
2017 use the General Inquirer Linguistic Category Model (LCM) dictionary to measure social
cognition in language, uses verbs to measure abstraction. My paper uses the “abs@” dictionary
value to measure abstraction, which includes 185 words that reflect abstract vocabulary such
as “ability”, “generalization”, and “glory”. The General Inquirer dictionary is a combination of
two different dictionaries: the Harvard IV dictionary and the Lasswell value dictionary.
Tenure of each justice is the number of years on the court at the time of the opinion publication;
gender is a binary scale for male and female; political ideology is measured by the justice’s
Martin-Quinn score of political ideology (Farnsworth, 2007); and the type of opinion is a
categorical variable for majority, concurring and dissenting opinions (Bonica & Sen, 2021;
Miller, 2022).
The control variables are the author and year the opinion was written. The Supreme Court
deliberates a varying number of cases each year, so there may be more opinions in one year
than another. The authors may have different writing styles that contribute to the language of
the opinion. Additionally, most Supreme Court justices have their own set of clerks that help
write the opinions. Controlling for these two variables demonstrate additional effects on power
outside of who writes the opinions and when the cases were deliberated.
RESULTS
Table I shows the descriptive statistics of independent, dependent and control variables and
the intercorrelations. Tables II through V summarize results from multivariate linear
regression analysis. The relationship between abstraction and tenure on the Court (H1a) shows
to be statistically significant. However, tenure is negatively correlated to abstraction,
suggesting that the less time a justice serves en banc, the more abstract their language. Thus,
hypothesis 1a is not supported, and further shows the opposite relationship as predicted with
shorter tenure correlated with more abstraction. The relationship between certainty and
tenure on the Court (H1b) does not appear to be statistically significant, making hypothesis 1b
invalid. The relationship between positive affect and tenure on Court is statistically significant.
However, tenure and positive affect (H1c) show to be negatively correlated such that the less
experience a justice has on the Court, the higher degree of positive affect they speak with.
Hypothesis 1c is supported in the opposite predicted direction. The relationship between
future-orientation and tenure (H1d) does not show to be statistically significant, and
hypothesis 1d is not supported.
Page 10 of 18
231
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
Table I: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Author 5.64 3.13 -
2. Year 2020.98 0.81 0.08 -
3. Tenure 13.04 9.98 -0.10* -0.09 -
4. Political Ideology 0.18 2.31 0.25** 0.01 0.21** -
5. Gender 0.32 0.47 0.002 0.08 -0.90* -0.63** -
6. Type of opinion 0.93 0.84 -.01 -0.01 0.10* -.004 0.01 -
7. Abstraction 1.02 0.57 -0.05 0.001 -0.07 0.06 -0.01 0.16* -
8. Certainty 0.48 0.23 0.02** -0.09 -0.03 0.04 -0.10* 0.12* -0.03 -
9. Positive affect 1.53 0.77 -0.03 -0.08 -0.10* 0.006 -0.05 0.12* 0.47** 0.004 -
10. Future orientation 0.61 0.41 -0.01 -0.07 -0.07 -0.12* 0.03 0.03 -0.10* 0.070 0.02
* p < 0.05., ** p < 0.01.
Table II: Results from multivariate linear regression for Abstraction
Non-standardized coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B SE Beta t p R
2
Model 1 0.002
Author -0.01 0.01 -0.04 -0.83 0.41
Year -0.003 0.03 -0.004 -0.07 0.94
Constant 6.14 69.15 - 0.09 0.93
Model 2 0.04
Author -0.02 0.01 -0.08 -1.60 0.11
Year -0.01 0.03 -0.01 -0.20 0.84
Constant 14.85 68.46 - 0.22 0.83
Tenure -0.01 0.003 -0.11 -2.12 0.04*
Political Ideology 0.03 0.02 0.13 1.92 0.06
Gender 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.36 0.72
Type of opinion 0.11 0.03 0.16 3.40 <0.001**
* p < 0.05., ** p < 0.01.
Table III: Results from multivariate linear regression for certainty
Non-standardized coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B SE Beta t p R
2
Model 1 0.06
Author 0.02 0.004 0.24 4.99 <0.01**
Year -0.03 -0.01 -0.11 -2.37 0.02*
Constant 65.85 27.61 - 2.39 0.02*
Model 2 0.09
Author 0.02 0.004 0.26 5.30 <0.01**
Year -0.03 0.01 -0.10 -2.17 0.03*
Constant 59.69 27.36 - 2.18 0.03*
Tenure -0.002 0.001 -0.08 -1.61 0.11
Political Ideology -0.01 0.01 -0.13 -2.06 0.04*
Gender -0.11 0.03 -0.21 -3.27 <0.01**
Type of opinion 0.03 0.01 0.12 2.55 0.01**
* p < 0.05., ** p < 0.01.
Table IV: Results from multivariate linear regression for positive affect
Non-standardized coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B SE Beta t p R
2
Page 11 of 18
232
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Model 1 0.002
Author -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.50 0.62
Year -0.07 0.05 -0.08 -1.56 0.12
Constant 146.67 93.32 - 1.57 0.12
Model 2 0.03
Author -0.01 0.01 -0.03 -0.64 0.53
Year -0.07 0.05 -0.08 -1.61 0.11
Constant 150.55 92.44 - 1.63 0.10
Tenure -0.01 0.004 -0.17 -3.25 <0.01**
Political Ideology -0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.37 0.71
Gender -0.21 -0.11 -0.13 -1.94 0.05*
Type of opinion 0.12 0.04 0.13 2.72 <0.01**
* p < 0.05., ** p < 0.01.
Table V: Results from multivariate linear regression for future orientation
Non-standardized coefficients Standardized Coefficients
B SE Beta t p R
2
Model 1 0.01
Author -0.001 0.01 -0.01 -0.10 0.92
Year -0.04 0.03 -0.07 -1.40 0.16
Constant 70.34 49.78 - 1.41 0.16
Model 2 0.03
Author 0.004 0.01 0.03 0.64 0.52
Year -0.04 0.03 -0.07 -1.40 0.16
Constant 70.03 49.73 - 1.41 0.16
Tenure -0.003 0.002 -0.08 -1.53 0.13
Political Ideology -0.03 0.01 -0.18 -2.69 <0.01**
Gender -0.10 0.06 -0.11 -1.63 0.10
Type of opinion 0.01 0.02 0.2 0.48 0.63
* p < 0.05., ** p < 0.01.
The relationship between abstraction and political ideology (H2a) is not significant,
invalidating hypothesis 2a. The relationship between certainty and political ideology (H2b) is
significant, showing that liberal justices communicate with more certainty. Thus, hypothesis 2b
is supported. The relationship between positive affect and political ideology (H2c) is not
statistically significant. Hypothesis 2c is not supported. The relationship between future- orientation and political ideology (H2d) is statistically significant. The results show future- orientation and political ideology to be negatively correlated such that, in accordance with the
Martin-Quinn scores of judicial ideology, justices that lean more liberal use language with
higher degrees of future orientation than conservative justices, which supports hypothesis 2d.
The relationship between abstraction and gender (H3a) is not statistically significant, not
supporting hypothesis 3a. The relationship between certainty and gender (H3b) is statistically
significant. The findings show that men communicate with more certainty than women,
supporting hypothesis 3b. The relationship between positive affect and gender (H3c) is
marginally significant, with men expressing more positive affect than women. Hypothesis 3c is
partially supported as men trend toward more certain language. The relationship between
future-orientation and gender (H3d) is statistically significant. Hypothesis 3d is not supported.
Results show support for the opposite of three out of the four hypotheses for type of opinion.
The relationship between abstraction and type of opinion (H4a) is statistically significant for
Page 13 of 18
234
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 8, August-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
et al., 2021; Hagle, 1993). However, justices such as Antonin Scalia have shown to defy these
freshmen effects by siding immediately with one ideological side, and therefore not occupying
a pivotal role in being the justice vote that decides a case (Rubin & Malone, 1988). Numerous
studies have found a positive correlation between power and risk-taking (Anderson & Galinsky,
2006; Lewellyn & Muller-Kahle, 2012). One study found that CEOs with short career horizons
(hence shorter time to retirement) and long tenure adopt strategies with less risk than CEOs
with shorter tenure (Romano et al., 2019), suggesting that the more senior CEOs take on lower
the risk taking. As less risk taking is linked to lower power (Magee et al., 2010), a longer tenure
may signal lower power, and a shorter tenure leading to higher power, as results in this study
support.
Executives and Supreme Court justices both display inherent similarities insofar as CEOs
embody the highest position at a corporation, and Supreme Court justices are the highest Court
in the United States; no Court can make a decision that overrides the ruling of the Supreme
Court. Further, the decisions a CEO makes affect the lives of the employees and other
stakeholders, which is akin to the rulings of the Supreme Court having a substantial influence
on the lives of everyday Americans. Justices who are newer on the Court are more likely to take
more risk in their written opinions, and thus display a higher level of power. More junior
justices, then, may be more likely to deploy riskier strategies compared to more senior justices.
Political ideology of the justices has an effect on power, with more liberal justices exhibiting
more power than more conservative justices. Specifically, a more liberal justice communicates
with more future orientation and certainty, with the data trending toward abstraction. This
finding may seem counterintuitive, but this current work supports the notion that public
sentiment may contribute to the power level of an entity. Rather than simply examining the
composition of the entity, the alignment of beliefs between the masses and the entity should be
further explored. Recent scholarly work found that public sentiment of political ideology drives
the power of politicians who share that political ideology (Trumbull, 2012; SØnderland et al.,
2017). Trumbull (2012) highlights the significance of positive support from the American
public for the Supreme Court, stating that mass support of certain political ideology from
citizens spearheads political success, even if the group representing said political ideology is
not necessarily the most well-organized or well-known. Within the last decade, three of the four
most recent justices added to the Court lean conservative. Law schools, a step in the pipeline to
becoming a Supreme Court Justice, are also becoming increasingly conservative, with
Conservative law professors being 62% more likely to have been Supreme Court law clerks
(Conklin, 2023). A poll taken in 2022 reveals that liberal and moderate ideologies make up a
larger portion of the collective American political ideology than conservative ideologies (Saad,
2022). As such, the overall political sentiment of the United States does not align with the
political leaning of the Supreme Court. The justices who lean liberally on the Martin-Quinn scale
of justice ideology (Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Jackson) and dissent from the
overarching political ideology of the Court, identify closer with the masses. Even though justices
such as Chief Justice Roberts are closer to moderate in the middle in the spectrum of Martin- Quinn scores, their career voting pattern shows their solidly conservative ideology (Belkin et
al., 2017), which again deviates from the collective political ideology of American society.
Liberal-leaning justices who are in the minority on the Court represent the majority of the
public’s sentiment, deriving power from “strength in numbers.” Thus, liberal justices have more
power on the Court than do conservative justices. The prevailing ideology of the masses may
Page 16 of 18
237
Chang, M. L. (2024). Behind the Bench: Power Dynamics in the Supreme Court of the United States Through the Lens of Construal Level. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(8). 222-239.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.118.17423
Feldman, A. (2024, April 1). Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across Ideological Lines [Blog]. Empirical
SCOTUS. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/04/01/charting-the-justices-decisions-cutting-across-ideological- lines/
Feldman, A., & Gill, R. D. (2019). Power Dynamics in Supreme Court Oral Arguments: The Relationship between
Gender and Justice-to-Justice Interruptions. Justice System Journal, 40(3), 173–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1637309
Gleason, S. A., Jones, J. J., & McBean, J. R. (2019). The Role of Gender Norms in Judicial Decision-Making at the U.S.
Supreme Court: The Case of Male and Female Justices. American Politics Research, 47(3), 494–529.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18766466
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and Goal Pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076–1087.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301011
Hagle, T. M. (1993). “Freshman Effects” for Supreme Court Justices. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4),
1142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111547
Houston, R., Li, S., & Johnson, T. R. (2021). Learning to Speak Up: Acclimation Effects and Supreme Court Oral
Argument. Justice System Journal, 42(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881668
Hout, M. (2021). America’s Liberal Social Climate and Trends. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(4), 1009–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab061
Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2011). Powerful postures versus powerful roles:
Which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior? Psychological science, 22(1), 95-102.
Hunt, C. V., Kim, A., Borgida, E., & Chaiken, S. (2010). Revisiting the self-interest versus values debate: The role of
temporal perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1155–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.004
Jacobi, T., & Sag, M. (2009). Taking the Measure of Ideology: Empirically Measuring Supreme Court Cases. 98.
Jacobi, T., & Schweers, D. (2017). Justice, interrupted: The effect of gender, ideology, and seniority at Supreme
Court oral arguments. Va. L. Rev., 103, 1379.
Johnson-Grey, K. M., Boghrati, R., Wakslak, C. J., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Measuring Abstract Mind-Sets Through
Syntax: Automating the Linguistic Category Model. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 217–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619848004
Jones, J. M. (2023, August 2). Supreme Court Approval Holds at Record Low.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/509234/supreme-court-approval-holds-record-low.aspx
Joshi, P. D., Wakslak, C. J., Appel, G., & Huang, L. (2020). Gender differences in communicative abstraction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000177
Jost, J. T., & Sterling, J. (2020). The language of politics: Ideological differences in congressional communication
on social media and the floor of Congress. Social Influence, 15(2–4), 80–103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403
Kwon, O. (2014). Beyond affective valence: The effect of different emotions on cognitive processing and persuasion
from a certainty-congruent approach. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/28310
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power Increases Social Distance. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611418679