ROLE THEORY ASSERTS THAT THE MANNER OF A PERSON'S ACCOMMODATION TO INSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES STRONGLY INFLUENCES HIS/HER DECISIONMAKING. THE FOLLOWING ROLE CONCEPTS ARE IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS: (1) THOSE HOLDING POSITIONS WITHIN AN INSTITUTION ARE 'ROLE OCCUPANTS;' (2) 'ROLE OCCUPANTS' ARE SUBJECT TO 'ROLE EXPECTATIONS,' WHICH ARE BELIEFS ABOUT HOW A ROLE OCCUPANT SHOULD BEHAVE; (3) ROLE EXPECTATIONS EMANATE FROM 'ROLE ALTERS,' A BROAD GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO INTERACT WITH THE ROLE OCCUPANT; (4) EACH ROLE OCCUPANT MUST SCREEN AND SYNTHESIZE THE EXPECTATIONS TO FORM A 'ROLE ORIENTATION,' WHICH IS THE BODY OF THE DECISIONMAKER'S BELIEFS ABOUT PROPER DECISIONMAKING BEHAVIOR; AND (5) ROLE RELEVANT ACTIVITY IS 'ROLE BEHAVIOR.' IN THE CASE OF A JUDGE, A DECISIONAL ROLE ORIENTATION IDENTIFIES THE CRITERIA THAT ARE LEGITIMATE FOR PROPER DECISIONMAKING (PRECEDENT, PERSONAL VALUES, COMMUNITY VALUES, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, ETC.) THE CRITERIA INFLUENCING JUDGES' DECISIONS AND THE PRIORITY GIVEN EACH CRITERION WILL VARY FROM JUDGE TO JUDGE. VARIOUS EMPIRICAL STUDIES HAVE SHOWN ROLE ORIENTATIONS TO BE CONSISTENTLY RELATED TO JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. FOR EXAMPLE, A STUDY SHOWED THAT FOR A GIVEN SAMPLE OF JUDGES, SENTENCING VARIATION WAS NOT RELATED TO THE PERSONAL ATTITUDES OR VALUES OF THE JUDGES, BUT FOR THOSE JUDGES WHO HAD A ROLE ORIENTATION THAT GAVE PRIORITY TO THEIR PERSONAL VALUES THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEIR VALUES AND SENTENCING DECISIONS. HOWEVER, OTHER JUDGES IN THE SAMPLE HAD A ROLE ORIENTATION THAT AIMED AT EXCLUDING PERSONAL VALUES FROM DECISIONMAKING IN THE INTEREST OF CONFORMING TO OTHER ROLE ORIENTATION CRITERIA FOR DECISIONMAKING. AREAS ARE SUGGESTED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH THAT CAN TEST AND EXPAND THE APPLICABILITY OF ROLE THEORY TO JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)