Expertise Fails to Attenuate Gendered Biases in Judicial Decision-Making

Abstract

Although the influence of gender ideology on lay decision-making has been established, it is not known to what extent expertise may mitigate gendered biases and improve decision-making quality. In a set of controlled experiments, trial court judges and laypeople evaluated a hypothetical child custody case and a hypothetical employment discrimination case. The role of expertise was tested in two ways: by comparing judges’ and laypeople’s decision-making and by examining relative differences in expertise among judges. Judges were no less influenced by litigant gender and by their own gender ideology than the lay sample. Judges with greater subject-matter expertise were also no less influenced by gender ideology than other judges. In some cases, expertise was associated with greater, not less, bias. The results of this study suggest that expertise does not attenuate gendered biases in legal decision-making.

Keywords

expertise bias decision-making gender ideology judges discrimination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berdahl

Moon

(2013). Workplace mistreatment of middle class workers based on sex, parenthood, and caregiving. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 341–366. doi:10.1111/josi.12018

Bertrand

Mullainathan

(2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.

Biernat

Vescio

T. K.

(2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66–77. doi:10.1177/0146167202281006

Correll

Park

Judd

Wittenbrink

Sadler

Keesee

(2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1006–1023. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1006

Correll

Benard

Paik

(2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338. doi:10.1086/511799

Crosby

Williams

Biernat

(2004). The maternal wall. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 675–682. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00379.x

Cuddy

Fiske

Glick

(2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x

Eberhardt

Goff

Purdie

Davies

(2004). Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876–893. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876

Englich

Mussweiler

Strack

(2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200. doi:10.1177/0146167205282152

10.

Fuegen

Biernat

Haines

Deaux

(2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job-related competence. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 737–754. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00383.x

11.

Girvan

Deason

Borgida

(2015). The generalizability of gender bias: Testing the effects of contextual, explicit, and implicit sexism on labor arbitration decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 525–537. doi:10.1037/lhb0000139

12.

Girvan

Marek

(2016). Psychological and structural bias in civil jury awards. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 8, 247–257. doi:10.1108/JACPR-09-2015-0190

13.

Goodman

Loftus

Miller

Greene

(1991). Money, sex, and death: Gender bias in wrongful death damage awards. Law & Society Review, 25, 263–286. doi:10.2307/3053799

14.

Guthrie

Rachlinski

Wistrich

(2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.

15.

Hannaford-Agor

Graves

Miller

(2015). The landscape of civil litigation in state courts. National Center for State Courts Civil Justice Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.ncsc.org/∼/media/Files/PDF/Research/CivilJusticeReport-2015.ashx

16.

Jordan

Zitek

(2012). Marital status bias in perceptions of employees. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 474–481. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.711687

17.

Jost

Rudman

Blair

Carney

Dasgupta

Glaser

Hardin

(2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001

18.

Kahneman

Klein

(2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526. doi:10.1037/a0016755

19.

Kim

Tidwell

(2014). Examining the impact of sexism on evaluations of social scientific evidence in discrimination litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 520–530. doi:10.1037/lhb0000103

20.

Lachance-Grzela

Bouchard

(2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767–780. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z

21.

Langton

Cohen

(2008). Civil bench and jury trials in state courts, 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbjtsc05.pdf

22.

Lassiter

Diamond

Schmidt

Elek

(2007). Evaluating videotaped confessions: Expertise provides no defense against the camera-perspective effect. Psychological Science, 18, 224–226. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01879.x

23.

Miller

(2014). The separate spheres ideology: An improved empirical and litigation approach to family responsibilities discrimination. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 343–379.

24.

Miller

Borgida

(2016). The separate spheres model of gendered inequality. PLOS One, 11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147315

25.

Okimoto

T. G.

Heilman

M. E.

(2012). The “bad parent” assumption: How gender stereotypes affect reactions to working mothers. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 704–724. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01772.x

26.

Rachlinski

Guthrie

Wistrich

(2011). Probable cause, probability, and hindsight. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 72–98. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x

27.

Rachlinski

Wistrich

Guthrie

(2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 695–739.

28.

Rudman

Mescher

(2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69, 322–340. doi:10.1111/josi.12017

29.

Rudman

Phelan

(2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192–202.

30.

Schmittat

Englich

(2016). If you judge, investigate! Responsibility reduces confirmatory information processing in legal experts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 386–400. doi:10.1037/law0000097

31.

Soper

(2017a). A-priori sample size calculator for multiple regression [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

32.

Soper

(2017b). A-priori sample size calculator for student t-tests [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

33.

Taber

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

34.

Tetlock

Mitchell

(2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 3–38. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB