Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T04:12:21.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conventional and Alternative Perspectives on Supreme Court Legitimacy: A Systematic Review of Experimental Evidence – ERRATUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2026

Kathryn Haglin Open the ORCID record for Kathryn Haglin [Opens in a new window] ,
Soren Jordan Open the ORCID record for Soren Jordan [Opens in a new window] ,
Alison Higgins Merrill  and
Joseph Daniel Ura Open the ORCID record for Joseph Daniel Ura [Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Erratum
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , First View , pp. 1
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Formatting errors were introduced into Table 4 during the production. The publishers apologise for these errors. The table should have been formatted as follows:

Table 4.

Distribution of Results by Dependent Variable Measures

A data table showing the distribution of results across three dependent variable measures: Broad court curbing, Diffuse support, and Narrow court curbing. See long description.
Table 4. Long description

The table consists of four columns and four data rows.

Columns from left to right are:

1. Result category (No, Yes Unconditional, Yes Conditional, and Total).

2. Broad court curbing.

3. Diffuse support.

4. Narrow court curbing.

5. Total.

Data breakdown by row:

- No: Broad court curbing 2 (4 percent); Diffuse support 5 (9 percent); Narrow court curbing 1 (2 percent); Total 8 (15 percent).

- Yes (Unconditional): Broad court curbing 1 (2 percent); Diffuse support 3 (5 percent); Narrow court curbing 4 (7 percent); Total 8 (15 percent).

- Yes (Conditional): Broad court curbing 6 (11 percent); Diffuse support 19 (35 percent); Narrow court curbing 14 (25 percent); Total 39 (70 percent).

- Total: Broad court curbing 9 (17 percent); Diffuse support 27 (49 percent); Narrow court curbing 19 (34 percent); Total 55 (100 percent).

Statistical note: Chi-squared equals 2.673, p equals 0.614.

Note: Test for independence of dependent variable measures by results: $ {\chi}^2 $ chi 2 = 2.673, $ p $ p = 0.614.

References

Haglin, Kathryn, Jordan, Soren, Merrill, Alison Higgins, and Ura, Joseph Daniel. 2026. “Conventional and Alternative Perspectives on Supreme Court Legitimacy: A Systematic Review of Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Law and Courts, Published online: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2026.10036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 4. Distribution of Results by Dependent Variable MeasuresTable 4. long description.