Overall, this study highlights the court as a still-relevant institution for public opinion, but one whose influence is minimal, and heavily dependent upon neutral to positive news coverage.
(end)

Why does the observational literature on courts capture heterogeneous results by party? Those studies bundle persuasion effects with media effects. I also test media effects, finding they are, on average, as or larger than court persuasion effects, suggesting media coverage is a key confounder.

BUT, when this influence does appear, it is parallel, moving Democrats and Republicans in the same direction by an approximately equal amount. This is true even on heavily polarized topics such as affirmative action and climate change.
3/x

The analysis included 114 effects from 19 studies across 44 years. As experiments have improved in statistical power, their average estimate of the influence of the court on public opinion has fallen dramatically, to just 0.06 standard deviations (about 2 percentage points).
2/x

Can't help but compare their story about No Kings yesterday to the anti-immigration protests in London last month. "Large crowds" when it's millions of left to center ppl and "huge crowd" when its tens of thousands of rightwingers (not remotely similar mobilization even controlling for US vs UK pop)

TLDR: parenthood doesn't change views on either issue, likely because parents form their risk perceptions before they become parents, and because they are too tired to change views while caring for an infant. Activists should not expect parenthood to be a point of opinion change on either issue.

Lots more in our paper here: osf.io/preprints/os...

Great research with a great team: @mattgoldberg100.bsky.social, @laurathowal.bsky.social, Lara Briggs, Anthony Leiserowitz, and the staff of Yale Climate Connections.

/end.

So, faced with the choice, should campaigns treat a larger sample once or a smaller sample multiple times? In cases where short term durability is important, multiple times. But, in cases where long term persuasion is the goal, a broader campaign might be more effective.

5/x

This difference in treatment effects closes after eight weeks. Our treatments (nonpartisan radio coverage of climate change) are durably persuasive, with 6%-8% of respondents remaining treated eight weeks after treatment with no evidence of backlash or partisan heterogeneity in effects

4/x