Double-Bind on the Bench: Citizen Perceptions of Judge Gender and the Court

Abstract

Scholars of gender and politics have long discussed the various manifestations of the “double-bind” for women who seek political leadership. Using a survey experiment with a nationally representative sample, this article examines whether this double-bind exists for female judges. The study reveals that while gender stereotypes are not uniformly applied to female judges, women on the bench are assessed differently in terms of their empathy and knowledge under certain circumstances. The article then discusses the potential implications of these gendered assessments for perceptions of the court, its actions, and women who aspire to judicial roles.

Diversifying the bench: Applying social cognitive theories to enhance judicial diversity

“…Independent of other institutional and systematic biases within the legal context, the power and status conveyed by judicial roles may discourage candidates who hold primarily communal values (e.g., prosociality and interdependence) -who are more likely to be from underrepresented social groups -either through disinterest or intimidation. Closer examination of judicial roles, however, reveals many opportunities to demonstrate communality; the communal attributes of judgeship are simply obscured by more salient perceptions of the position's agentic stereotypes (Koenig & Eagly, 2014;Nelson, 2015). For example, group-based decision-making occurs at the appellate level, where judges determine whether the law was applied correctly in lower courts.…”

Do Voters Prefer Women Judges? Deconstructing the Competitive Advantage in State Supreme Court Elections

“…Women may also approach the judicial decision-making process differently because they bring a unique voice and set of experiences to the task. This can be particularly important in cases where gender is salient (e.g., Boyd 2013; Farhang and Wawro 2004;Haire and Moyer 2015;Songer, Davis, and Haire 1994) or is particularly relevant to the case (Nelson 2015). 2 It is difficult to say why women are still underrepresented on the bench.…”

“…Part of the delay in diversifying the bench may be a result of the incumbency advantage. Judicial elections of all types can be low information elections (Nelson 2015), and voters search for any signal that will help them reduce information costs (Dubois 1979; Klein and Baum 2001; Matson and Fine 2006; Schaffner and Streb 2002). One of the most important cues is incumbency status.…”

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

“…Nelson () examines how gender stereotypes affect assessments of U.S. Courts of Appeals judges in a gender salient issue area (sex discrimination cases).…”