Affiliation:
1. Department of Political Science University of Dayton Dayton Ohio USA
2. Department of International Studies and Modern Languages; Department of Political Science University of St. Thomas Houston Texas USA
Abstract
AbstractWith 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.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science,Political Science and International Relations
Reference107 articles.
1. SUPPORT FOR THE SUPREME COURT AS A NATIONAL POLICYMAKER
2. MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations
3. Alan Frey v. Trinity Health‐Michigan. (2021).No. 359446 (Ct. of Appeals Michigan).
4. Austin et al. vs. U.S. Navy Seals 1–26 et al. (2022).595 S. Ct. _.
5. The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation