When dissents are allowed, judges must decide whether or when to write them. While the main insights of rational dissent theory have been documented and corroborated in several empirical studies, there has been much less evidence testing on how different types of dissent may affect the likelihood of dissent. Particularly, dissents in more salient cases, or more forceful dissents, may have stronger legal effects than dissents appearing in less relevant cases or very narrowly construed dissents. Our article aims to fill that gap in the literature by seeking to isolate varying levels of appeal intensity and types of dissents in the Supreme Court of Argentina. Unlike previous literature, we find that more important cases have a lower likelihood of carrying a dissenting opinion. Yet, when we breakdown dissents by type (that is, reasoned dissents versus boilerplate dissents), we find that majority decisions carrying dissents tend to be longer, but only in cases of reasoned dissents. Furthermore, we show that reasoned dissents are more likely to occur in important cases. Overall, our study highlights that not all dissents should be treated alike as different types of dissent carry different levels of collegial and effort related costs. These costs affect the likelihood of dissent in different and complex ways.

允许异议时，法官必须决定是否或何时撰写异议。尽管理性异议理论的主要见解已在一些实证研究中得到证明和证实，但关于不同异议类型如何影响异议可能性的证据测试却少得多。尤其是，与在不太相关的案件中出现的异议或解释非常狭窄的异议相比，在更为突出的案件中的异议或更有力的异议可能具有更强的法律效力。我们的文章旨在通过寻求隔离不同程度的上诉强度和阿根廷最高法院的异议类型来填补文献中的空白。与以前的文献不同，我们发现更重要的案件持不同意见的可能性较低。但是，当我们按类型细分异议时（即，理性异议与样板异议），我们发现多数持异议的决定往往更长一些，但仅限于理性异议的情况。此外，我们表明，在重要情况下，有理由的异议更有可能发生。总体而言，我们的研究强调，并非所有异议人士都应得到同等对待，因为不同类型的异议人士会承担与大学和工作相关的费用不同的水平。这些成本以不同和复杂的方式影响异议的可能性。我们的研究强调，并非所有异议人士都应得到同等对待，因为不同类型的异议人士会承担与大学和工作相关的费用不同的水平。这些成本以不同和复杂的方式影响异议的可能性。我们的研究强调，并非所有异议人士都应得到同等对待，因为不同类型的异议人士会承担与大学和工作相关的费用不同的水平。这些成本以不同和复杂的方式影响异议的可能性。