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.
BerdahlJ.MoonS. (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
2.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (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.
3.
BiernatM.VescioT. 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
4.
CorrellJ.ParkB.JuddC.WittenbrinkB.SadlerM.KeeseeT. (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
5.
CorrellS.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338. doi:10.1086/511799
6.
CrosbyF.WilliamsJ.BiernatM. (2004). The maternal wall. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 675–682. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00379.x
7.
CuddyA.FiskeS.GlickP. (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
8.
EberhardtJ.GoffP.PurdieV.DaviesP. (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
9.
EnglichB.MussweilerT.StrackF. (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.
FuegenK.BiernatM.HainesE.DeauxK. (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.
GirvanE.DeasonG.BorgidaE. (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.
GirvanE.MarekH. (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.
GoodmanJ.LoftusE.MillerM.GreeneE. (1991). Money, sex, and death: Gender bias in wrongful death damage awards. Law & Society Review, 25, 263–286. doi:10.2307/3053799
14.
GuthrieC.RachlinskiJ.WistrichA. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830.
JordanA.ZitekE. (2012). Marital status bias in perceptions of employees. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 474–481. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.711687
17.
JostJ.RudmanL.BlairI.CarneyD.DasguptaN.GlaserJ.HardinC. (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.
KahnemanD.KleinG. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526. doi:10.1037/a0016755
19.
KimA.TidwellN. (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-GrzelaM.BouchardG. (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
LassiterG.DiamondS.SchmidtH.ElekJ. (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.
MillerA. (2014). The separate spheres ideology: An improved empirical and litigation approach to family responsibilities discrimination. Minnesota Law Review, 99, 343–379.
24.
MillerA.BorgidaE. (2016). The separate spheres model of gendered inequality. PLOS One, 11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147315
25.
OkimotoT. G.HeilmanM. 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.
RachlinskiJ.GuthrieC.WistrichA. (2011). Probable cause, probability, and hindsight. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 72–98. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x
27.
RachlinskiJ.WistrichA.GuthrieC. (2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 695–739.
28.
RudmanL.MescherK. (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.
RudmanL.PhelanJ. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192–202.
30.
SchmittatS.EnglichB. (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
TaberC.LodgeM. (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.
TetlockP.MitchellG. (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.
