Abstract

In the last several decades a wide literature has developed around gendered perceptions of political leaders. However, to date, the lion’s share of this literature has examined elected officials. Here we argue that a similar effect can be found in perceptions of judges and judging. Using two survey experiments, we argue that the core quality by which judges are evaluated, “judiciousness,” is gendered masculine. In essence, when individuals are asked to evaluate nominees, personality and character information is used differently depending on the gender of the nominee. In particular, female nominees face a double standard, failing to benefit equally from positive personality information while male nominees enjoy greater support. Thus, even if female nominees are successful in obtaining Senate confirmation, they face a steeper hill to climb with how people perceive their judiciousness than a similarly qualified male nominee would.

摘要

在过去的几十年中，围绕政治领导人的性别观念发展了广泛的文献。然而，迄今为止，这些文献的大部分内容都考察了民选官员。在这里，我们认为在法官和判断的看法中可以找到类似的效果。通过两个调查实验，我们认为评估法官的核心品质“判断力”是男性化的。本质上，当要求个人评估被提名人时，个性和性格信息的使用会因被提名人的性别而异。尤其是女性被提名人面临双重标准，无法从积极的人格信息中平等受益，而男性被提名人则获得更多支持。因此，即使女性提名人成功获得参议院确认，