Between Preference and Principle: How Policy Outcomes Shape Commitment to the Rule of Law in the Netherlands.

This thesis investigates how outcome favorability of judicial rulings on immigration policy shapes individuals’ commitment to the rule of law in the Netherlands. Although public endorsement of the normative principle of rule of law is widespread, academic literature increasingly suggests that support for the rule of law hinges on other factors. Building on theories of legitimacy, motivated reasoning, and negativity bias, this study examines whether unfavorable court rulings weaken commitment to the rule of law and whether this relationship is moderated by prior policy preferences and baseline trust in the judiciary. A randomized between-subjects survey experiment (N = 360) was conducted to test these expectations in the Netherlands. The respondents, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling, were randomly exposed to one of two real-world case vignettes depicting either a permissive or restrictive court ruling on immigration policy. The analysis of the experimental data...Show moreThis thesis investigates how outcome favorability of judicial rulings on immigration policy shapes individuals’ commitment to the rule of law in the Netherlands. Although public endorsement of the normative principle of rule of law is widespread, academic literature increasingly suggests that support for the rule of law hinges on other factors. Building on theories of legitimacy, motivated reasoning, and negativity bias, this study examines whether unfavorable court rulings weaken commitment to the rule of law and whether this relationship is moderated by prior policy preferences and baseline trust in the judiciary. A randomized between-subjects survey experiment (N = 360) was conducted to test these expectations in the Netherlands. The respondents, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling, were randomly exposed to one of two real-world case vignettes depicting either a permissive or restrictive court ruling on immigration policy. The analysis of the experimental data reveals that individuals whose preferences aligned with the vignette expressed higher support for judicial authority, while incongruent outcomes corresponded to diminished support. However, contrary to expectations of negativity bias, no asymmetrical pattern emerged in the exploratory analysis. Similarly, there was no evidence that salience of prior immigration attitudes or baseline trust attenuates the impact of outcome favorability. Subsequently, these findings underscore that even in a context characterized by high institutional trust and a depoliticized judiciary, evaluations of courts (at least in the short term) are tethered to citizens’ policy preferences.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

Between Preference and Principle: How Policy Outcomes Shape Commitment to the Rule of Law in the Netherlands.