UDICIAL role orientations are judges' measurable attitudes regarding the legal and political functions of courts, and their perceptions of the institutional norms governing judicial decision making. Role orientations have received considerable attention from researchers interested in the judicial process (see, e.g., Becker 1965, 1966; Berry 1974; Flango, Wenner, and Wenner 1975; Galanter, Palen, and Thomas 1979; Gibson 1978, 1981, 1983; Glick 1971; Glick and Vines 1969; Howard 1977; Ish 1975; James 1968; Jaros and Mendelsohn 1967; Scheb 1984; Scheb and Ungs 1987; Ungs and Baas 1972; Vines 1969; Wold 1974). J. Woodford Howard (1977) has defined judicial role orientations as "normative expectations shared by judges and related actors regarding how a given judicial office should be performed" (p. 916). Similarly, but more succinctly, James Gibson (1983) defines judicial role orientations as what judges "think they ought to do" (pp. 9, 17). Gibson sees role theory as "a means of moving beyond an exclusive focus on individuals to consider the influence of institutional constraints on
