Vanessa Anne Baird

Department of Political Science

University of Colorado-Boulder

Vanessa.Baird@Colorado.edu

Employment

Associate Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, 2007-present

Assistant Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, 2000-2007

Education

Doctor of Philosophy, (Political Science) University of Houston, 2000

Bachelor of Arts with University Honors (German Area Studies): University of Houston, 1993

Research

Books

Baird, Vanessa A. 2007. Answering the Call of the Court: How Justices and Litigants Set the Supreme Court Agenda. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Peer Reviewed Articles

Baird, Vanessa, and Jennifer Wolak. “Why Some Blame Politics for Their Personal Problems.” American Politics Research (2021): 1532673X211013463.

According to an algorithm created by Altmetrics, above paper was the 20th most influential Political Science article published in 2021 (out of 197590 papers). The Altmetric Attention Score is designed to measure the attention an article receives, from other academic sources, but also weighs quite heavily the representation of articles in the news media. The article was written up in Psych News Daily, (now named Such Science), and has been tweeted 256 times from 253 users, with an upper bound of 1,071,782 followers. 88% of tweets were by members of the public, and 9% were other scientists. Here is the Such Science article.

 

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. 2013. “Institutional Persuasion to Support Minority Rights in Russia” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 21, 1: 33-58.

Liu, Amy and Vanessa A. Baird. 2012. “Linguistic Recognition as a Source of Confidence in the Judicial System.” Comparative Political Studies, 20 (10): 1-27.

Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird. 2011. “The Surprisingly Nonviolent Aftermath of the Beslan School Hostage Taking.”  Problems of Post-Communism, 58(4-5): 3-22.  

Fitzgerald, Jennifer, and Vanessa A. Baird. 2011. “Taking a Step Back: Teaching Critical Thinking by Distinguishing Appropriate Types of Evidence”. PS: Political Science & Politics 44(3) 619-624.

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. 2010. “The Effects of National and Local Funding on Judicial Performance: Perceptions of Russia’s Lawyers.”  Law and Society Review 44(2): 331-64.  

Baird, Vanessa A. and Tonja Jacobi.  2009.  How the Dissent Becomes the Majority: Using Federalism to Transform Coalitions in the U.S. Supreme Court, Duke Law Review 59 (November; 2): 183-238.

Baird, Vanessa A. and Tonja Jacobi.  2009. Judicial Agenda Setting through Signaling and Strategic Litigant Responses.”  Washington University Journal of Law& Policy 29: 215-239.

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. 2007. “The Persuasive Power of Russian Courts,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60 (3): 429-42.

Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird.  2007. “Who Sues Government? Evidence from the Moscow Theater Hostage Case,” Comparative Political Studies 40 (July): 858-85.

McLaren, Lauren, and Vanessa A Baird. 2006. “Of Time and Causality: A Simple Test of the Requirement of Social Capital in Making Democracy Work in Italy,” Political Studies 54 (December): 889–897.

Baird, Vanessa A. and Amy Gangl. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness,” Political Psychology 27 (August): 597-614.

Baird, Vanessa A.  2004. “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Agenda,” Journal of Politics 66 (August): 755-72.

Baird, Vanessa A.  2001.  “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice,” Political Research Quarterly, 54 (June): 333-54.

Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira and Vanessa A. Baird.  1998.  “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” American Political Science Review, 92 (June): 343-358.

 

The first version of this article was my Data I paper (the first paper I wrote in graduate school). Initially, I focused on just East and West Germany, but Jim and Greg invited me to be their coauthor and test the hypothesis with a wider set of countries. In 2020, it received the Lasting Contribution Award from American Political Science Association’s Law and Courts Section from 2020. It has 899 citations and counts as one of the most cited papers in the subfield of law and courts.

 

Baird, Vanessa, and Alan Stone.  1998.  “Why Privatization: The Case of German Telecommunications,” Social Science Quarterly, 79 (March): 193 – 211.

Working Projects with Undergraduates in 2022

 

Ford, Brett and Vanessa Baird. Using doctrinal ideology of a case to measure aggregate Supreme Court ideology over time. Status: in preparation

 

Using the most recent version of the Supreme Court database, we argue that we ought to use the updated version of the measure of the doctrinal ideology of a case instead of what is currently used: percent liberal of reversals. We explain why reversals were an improvement over using all cases, but we also show in this paper that some assumptions about why this was improved are not empirically sound. The argument for using only reversals depends on two assumptions: litigants in some cases place the question in a different place on an ideological continuum than litigants in other cases, and 2) petitioners are likely rational. We show that the first assumption is valid but that the second is not. We attempt to show the validity of our measure by looking at over time and across policy area illustrations.

 

Gendhill, Lauren, Courtney Nava, and Vanessa A. Baird.  When an Internal Locus of Control Unravels and Produces Health Risk-Taking in the Early Stages of COVID-19. Status: Rejected from Social Science and Medicine, after multiple R&Rs.

Using a nationally representative sample in the summer and fall of 2020, investigated the relative merits of self-efficacy and internal locus of control from the literature on the health behavior model (HBM) for the decision to take COVID-19 seriously. While testing the robustness of the effects, however, we found that this effect does not apply to all people equally: among Republicans, an external locus of control made people more serious about taking COVID precautions. Looking back at the literature, we found that researchers identified a limited set of circumstances in which an internal locus of control can lead to overconfidence, a sense of invulnerability, or a sense of wanting to appear strong, which then might undermine a sense that one must be proactive about health (e.g. adolescent decision-making and other risk-taking behaviors of drivers or pilots). This effect is less likely to be true of self-efficacy which has more to do with themselves and less to do with external actors. With this idea in mind, we tested a new set of hypotheses and found that for risk takers, and who have reason to be less fearful, the more internal the locus of control, the more careful they were about COVID.  For who have reason to be fearful, they take COVID seriously when they have more external locus of control. Given these findings, scholars ought to expand our understanding of the mechanisms by which internal locus of control translates into a person taking their health seriously.

 

In 2022, we also submitted new questions and an experimental vignette that we pre-registered to further nail down the causal inferences from the 2022 data.

 

Current Projects

Wolak, Jennifer, and Vanessa A. Baird. The impact of social identities on support for the rule of law.

This paper finds that most people have multiple social identities, including a combination of superordinate identities as well as subgroup identities. While subgroup identities may pull some people away from social and political (democratic) norms, they only do so when in isolation from superordinate identification with the nation (i.e., patriotism). Since subgroup identification often goes hand in hand with superordinate identification, these identities rarely undercut social and democratic norms.

 

Vanessa A. Baird. The impact of Life Circumstances on Support for Violence and the Rule of Law

This book project uses data from the 2016- 2024 CCES  to understand what makes people support the rule of law, focusing on what makes people support even unjust laws but also looking at what makes people believe that political violence is acceptable.  This psychological account looks particularly at explanations that allowed the transition from violence as the state of society to one that makes people accept potentially disagreeable political outcomes versus the hope that they can get what they want through violent means. Many accounts of support for constitutional democracies involve the success of socialization.  We look at attributes of people that would have made them support the transition before socialization took root.

 

In the calendar year of 2022, I made extensive progress toward a final draft of this book. It is now 250 pages, includes support for violence. I am still working on the front and back end to respond to comments from reviewers on related article manuscript submissions.

 

Barwick, Corey and Vanessa A. Baird.  On the Nature of the Rule of Law.  Status: rejected from Law and Society Review

Using data from the 2016 CCES, this paper investigates the sources of support for the rule of law. Weaving together previous work on identity and procedural justice, threat and political tolerance, the locus of control and moral disengagement, we argue that support for the rule of law can be explained by some of the ways people see themselves vis-à-vis society. In particular, we find that when people’s sense of themselves is insecure or threatened, support for the law unravels. Yet, we also find that certain identity insecurities, such as a sensitivity to social norms, make the idea of the law more appealing. The analysis corroborates decades of research showing that support for the law is connected to other democratic norms, and that education can strengthen the connection between the abstract rule of law and some concrete applications. In the end, the findings offer some speculative insights into some of the puzzles in other areas of legal culture.

 

Barwick, Corey and Vanessa A. Baird.  Non-material suffering and support for political violence.  Status: Presented at Midwest Political Science Association meeting, April 2022. Status: revision.   

Using data from the 2020 CCES, this paper investigates the sources of support for several forms of politically motivated violence: protest violence, vigilante violence, and (illegitimate) police violence. Findings suggest that non-economic factors are the primary drivers of this support: negative emotions, an external locus of control (Bandura, 2015) and personality (dogmatism and a lower sense of empathy, and optimism) predicts higher support for violence, while support for the rule of law and other democratic norms strongly reduce violent tendencies. Findings also provide a clue for why economic factors do not always predict outbreaks of various forms of violence: many of these non-economic factors seem to be “activated” by economic grievances. A corollary of this is that the absence of economic grievances reduce the impact of negative life experiences and personality. The analysis suggests that when people’s expectations about their life, status, and social identity are violated, they support violence at higher levels. Interestingly, racial or ethnic group identity reduces support for violence among non-whites, but among whites, such an identity increases support for violence. That, combined with the inference from the external locus of control, suggests that when people are empowered to influence the electoral system or in their own lives, they do not support violence.

 

Baird, Vanessa A. and Jennifer Wolak.  The Empowering Force of Social Identity Attachments for Protecting Democratic Norms and Rejecting Violence, presented at the 2023 MPSA

Using data from the 2020 and 2022 CCES, this paper challenges the conventional wisdom that those with higher identity attachments are more willing to support violence for their political opponents. While there is some preliminary evidence that strong partisan identity encourages violence, our results show that party attachments significantly reduce violence, regardless of how it is measured. Moreover, racial, class, and political identity, whether measured as the salience of identity attachment, or their perception of linked fate, reduces support for every kind of violence and increases attachment to other norms of democracy, such as protest liberties, support for the U.S. Supreme Court, and for the rule of law more generally. Status: analysis.

 

Law and Economics

 

Baird, Vanessa A.  Why the Supreme Court Cannot Make Liberal Economic Policy: The Effect of Profit Minded Litigants’ Strategies on the Supreme Court’s Agenda.  Status: Measurement portion of this paper is in preparation with Brett Ford, undergraduate student.

This paper offers an explanation for why the Supreme Court’s economic agenda has been primarily conservative historically.  It hands down liberal economic cases from time to time but has few eras where legal change builds case by case, such as we have seen in free speech or civil rights.  This paper builds on findings from Baird (2004, 2007) that show that the Supreme Court’s agenda varies with Justices’ policy priorities from four to six years before, with the argument that future cases took that long to reach the Court.  Yet incentives vary across different kinds of litigants, complicating the story; when the Court is perceived to be liberal, corporate interests are far more likely to be risk averse than other interests and may be more likely to settle or even fail to answer a suit by simply being more likely to accept the other party’s terms.  Thus, important economic cases that might alter public law in a liberal direction are not among the cases from which Justice choose to decide.  This means that the Supreme Court is institutionally incapacitated to protect consumers, workers, or the environment. Even a liberal Court will be hindered in its ability to reverse course from previous economic conservative decisions because it will lack a sufficient number of cases to promote such legal change.

 

Pedagogy

Textbook. An introduction to statistics for causal inquiry: historical illustrations from the social, health, and life sciences. Status: new chapters on comparative case studies and exogeneity written.

 

Grant Proposal to test efficacy of learning assessments. NSF. Status: Based on preliminary feedback from NSF, we are waiting to publish other work before pursuing a large data collection effort.

 

Grant Proposal to test whether curriculum and learning assessments increase intellectual humility.  Status: submitted to Templeton.

Baird, Vanessa A. Pedagogical Grant to Create Multimedia Illustrations of Concepts in Constitutional Law to Improve Distance Learning During COVID-19. Institute of Humane Studies. Status: Rejected. Examples of illustrations that I created in the past.

 

Baird, Vanessa A. Improving Textbooks for Teaching Critical Thinking. Status: Submitted to College Teaching. Wiley.

 

Political Theory

Baird, Vanessa A. Ditching Justice: Testing Hobbes’ Theories in Contemporary Political, Social, and Legal Psychology. 

Hobbes tells us to give up on justice because it leads to ‘competition for honor and dignity,’ which leads to ‘envy and hatred, and finally war.’  The evidence that people’s “honor and dignity” are more supported by fair procedures than fair outcomes (Tyler, et al. 2007) would probably surprise Hobbes, as would the evidence of the high support for even unjust laws and unfair legal institutions.  On the other hand, when people do not identify with the dominant group in society, their dignity is not supported by fair procedures, and they are less likely to accept disagreeable outcomes.  Extrapolating from this, I argue that Hobbes’ advice about ditching justice in our political deliberations is even more important.  Appealing to justice or the truth in our political deliberations (“I am right – you are wrong;” “You are racist – I am not,”) likely undermine a person’s honor and dignity could force them to seek alternative separationist identities, based on ethnic, racial or party lines where their self-esteem can be bolstered.  This, in turn, could lead to lower support for disagreeable democratic procedures and laws that are perceived as unjust.

 

 

Book Chapters

Gibson, James L., and Vanessa A. Baird.  1997.  “Legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis.”  In Perspectives on American and Texas Politics: A Collection of Essays.  Edited by Donald S. Lutz, Kent L. Tedin, and Edward P. Fuchs.  Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1997.  Pp. 89-113.

Book Reviews

Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do, Cass Sunstein.  Law and Politics Book Review, 12 (May 2002): 246-249.

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model, Revisited, Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth.  Journal of Politics, forthcoming.

Service Publications

Baird, Vanessa A.  2009.  Advice to New Faculty and Young Faculty for Prospering in the Field of Judicial Politics.  Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 19 (2: spring): 7-8.

Baird, Vanessa A.  2008.  Research Spotlight: Merging Phase I and Phase II of the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database.  Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 19 (1: Winter): 17-18.

Grants*

Research – External

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. After Violence: Participation over Retaliation in Beslan, proposal submitted to The National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, February 2008; status: funded ($67,000).

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. Political Responses to Tragedy: Citizen Participation after Beslan, proposal submitted to Kellogg, June 2006; status: funded ($10,000).

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. University of Notre Dame’s Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, Pilot Fund for Social Sciences, “Political Responses to Tragedy: Citizen Participation After Beslan,” matched by University of Notre Dame’s Office of Research, 2006 ($30,000).

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. University of Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute, Collaborative Research Grant, survey research workshop to develop and refine questionnaire for “Political Responses to Tragedy: Citizen Participation After Beslan,” 2006 ($4,000).

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. United States Agency for International Development, three-year study of attitudes of Russian public, judicial professionals, and NGO leaders toward the Russian judicial system, 2002-04 ($389,527).

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. National Science Foundation Small Grants for Exploratory Research, “Judicial Pioneers: Litigants in the Moscow Theater Hostage Case,” grant SES-0317122, 2003 ($40,824).

Research – Internal

Baird, Vanessa A. Testing the effectiveness of TILES: Teaching Students to Identify Logical Errors Systematically, 2023: $4500 granted

Baird, Vanessa A. Judicial Decisions and Compliance: The Electoral Connection. Vertically Integrated Research and Teaching Team (VIRTT) Grant.   Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts through the American Political Science Association, Council of Graduate Schools and the American Association of Universities and Colleges, through the Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences (CARTSS), University of Colorado at Boulder, Spring 2004 ($2000).

Teaching – External

Baird, Vanessa A. Michaele Ferguson and David Mapel.  2005. Ford Foundation Initiative. Difficult Dialogues: Promoting Pluralism and Academic Freedom on Campus. ($10,000).

Teaching – Internal

Baird, Vanessa A. Michaele Ferguson and David Mapel.  2005. Institute of Civic and Ethic Engagement. ($10,000).

 

*Grant authorship is listed alphabetically.

Awards

Nominee, Boulder Campus Faculty Assembly Excellence in Teaching Award, 2006

Teacher of the Year, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, 2006

Undergraduate Mentor Award, Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, 2022

Invited Presentations

January 2024: Johns Hopkins Political Science: Teaching TILES with Courselets: an online open response concept test: the first attempt to create a concept inventory in the social sciences

January 2024: Colorado State University: Democratic Accountability

January 2016, University of Colorado Law

November 2015, Social Science Forum

November 2012, Northwestern Law School

April 2009, Northwestern Law School

November 2008, Brooklyn Law School

November 2008, University of Houston Law School

June 2007, CSPAN BookTV

May 2006, University of Colorado Law School

January 2006, University of Washington

August 2005, University of Colorado Law School

October 2003, University of Houston

June, 2002, Oxford University

May, 2001, University of Notre Dame

July, 1999, Texas A&M University

November, 1998, University of New Mexico

Teaching

American Government

PSCI 1101: The American Political System: a large lecture course, taught as a Nature of Science course; Canvas course

Judicial Politics

PSCI 4241: Constitutional Law, taught as law school preparation; Canvas course

PSCI 3271: Law and Society: with a focus of on criminal law and economic inequality; Canvas course

PSCI 3301: Gender, Sexuality, and U.S. law; Canvas course

Statistical Methodology

PSCI 7085: Graduate: Introduction to Political Science Data Analysis; Canvas course

PSCI 3075: Undergraduate: Designing Social Inquiry (about a third of the class presents their papers at a national conference); Canvas course

Political Behavior

PSCI 7031: Graduate: Political Behavior; Canvas course

 

Past courses

 

Introduction to the Legal System

Judicial Behavior and Process

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Graduate: Introduction to the Rule of Law

The American Political System (Honors)

 

First Year Seminar

Introduction to Political Dialogue

 

Political Theory

Modern Political Thought (University of Houston)

Ancient and Medieval Political Thought (University of Houston)

Introduction to Political Theory (University of Houston)

Democratic Theory (University of Houston)

 

 

 

Public talks and blogposts

Panel on Democratic Accountability, with Matthew Hitt and Seth Masket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l6BLIBARrA&ab_channel=CSUPoliticalScience\

 

Blogpost: Dobbs and the First Amendment

https://www.colorado.edu/keller/five-freedoms-first-amendment-blog

 

 

has been added to the cart. View Cart