The Legal Double Standard: Gender, Personality Information, and the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees

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.