illustrated, judges in fact resort to many of the known of in their “weapons influence” judgments. How do these techniques work when we shift from the realm of interpersonal interaction to relations? Surprisingly perhaps, as we have shown, they appear institutional to work in very similar ways. True, in the formal legal sense the recipients of judicial judgments are not facing any not to accept them and as noted, the perception “choice” – of free choice has been shown to be critical for the success of influence techniques. But if we consider the need of the Court to secure broad support for its decisions, and avoid resistance and clashes (for example, in the form of attempts to change a new judge-made law by legislation), it becomes obvious that the counterparts have choices to do courts’ make regarding how to respond to the judgments. Judges can therefore benefit from using effective weapons of influence in order to steer the other branches, the legal community, and the public, to respond in ways that are more desirable from the perspective. Court’s As for the fact that the influence attempts are not directed at specific Courts’ individuals, but rather at other institutions or large groups/communities, this does not preclude the application of the principles of consistency and reciprocation. Institutions and groups reflect at least to some extent the opinions and inclinations of the individuals comprising them. It is therefore quite plausible that institutions will respond to influence techniques in much the same way as individuals do even if the specific people of which – the institution is composed change from time to time or have different characteristics. Research has also shown that reciprocation can occur between an individual and an organization, for example in the context of employment relations, where employees tend to reciprocate fair or unfair treatment by the employing organization/firm (e.g. Rousseau,
illustrated, judges in fact resort to many of the known “weapons of influence” in their judgments. How do these techniques work when we shift from the realm of interpersonal interaction to institutional relations? Surprisingly perhaps, as we have shown, they appear to work in very similar ways. True, in the formal legal sense the recipients of judicial judgments are not facing any “choice” not to accept them – and as noted, the perception of free choice has been shown to be critical for the success of influence techniques. But if we consider the need of the Court to secure broad support for its decisions, and avoid resistance and clashes (for example, in the form of attempts to change a new judge-made law by legislation), it becomes obvious that the courts’ counterparts do have choices to make regarding how to respond to the judgments. Judges can therefore benefit from using effective weapons of influence in order to steer the other branches, the legal community, and the public, to respond in ways that are more desirable from the Court’s perspective. As for the fact that the Courts’ influence attempts are not directed at specific individuals, but rather at other institutions or large groups/communities, this does not preclude the application of the principles of consistency and reciprocation. Institutions and groups reflect at least to some extent the opinions and inclinations of the individuals comprising them. It is therefore quite plausible that institutions will respond to influence techniques in much the same way as individuals do – even if the specific people of which the institution is composed change from time to time or have different characteristics. Research has also shown that reciprocation can occur between an individual and an organization, for example in the context of employment relations, where employees tend to reciprocate fair or unfair treatment by the employing organization/firm (e.g. Rousseau,