Abstract

In this study, focused group interviews with 24 incumbent judges were conducted on how they conceptualize public opinion and what attitude they take toward it in relation to judicial trials. The contents of the interviews were analyzed through grounded theory and topic modeling (STM). According to the grounded theory results, judges distinguished concepts such as social rules, socially accepted ideas, legal emotion, and public mood from public opinion, and subdivided public opinion into temporary and emotional reactions to specific legal cases and consistent attitudes toward law and policies. In addition, it was found that judges' attitudes toward public opinion and social norms differed depending on the type of cases or legal issues. Topic modeling results significantly corresponded to the grounded theory results. In this model, the effects of the types of cases dedicated to participants on topical prevalence were statistically significant.