Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T06:36:39.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Judges Behaving Badly: Judicial Misconduct and a Threat to Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2024

Melissa N. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Kayla S. Canelo*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA
*
Corresponding author: Kayla S. Canelo; Email: kayla.canelo@uta.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unethical behavior among US judges, including sexual misconduct and other forms of discriminatory behavior, is becoming increasingly publicized. These controversies are particularly concerning given the important role judges play in shaping policy pertaining to individual rights. We argue that types of misconduct serve as a signal to the public about potential threats judges may pose to people, particularly groups of people who are marginalized. We use a survey experiment that introduces a judge who has engaged in misconduct to measure if the type of misconduct will influence attitudes on whether the judge poses a threat to the rights of women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities. Interestingly, we find that judges accused of discriminatory misconduct toward one group are viewed as a threat to rights across the board and are seen as less able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to marginalized people more generally.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Egregious and unethical behavior from judges in the American judiciary is becoming increasingly publicized to the point the United States Senate is debating a Supreme Court ethics bill. Lower court examples of ethical misconduct include Michelle Odinet, a city court judge in Louisiana, and Randy Jinks, an Alabama probate judge, making racist remarks. More publicized are notable instances of misconduct in Supreme Court confirmation hearings where Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the US Supreme Court despite facing accusations of sexual misconduct that swept headlines. During the second day of the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh, Hillary Clinton posted on Twitter, “If Brett Kavanaugh becomes a Supreme Court justice, will he help gut or overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in America? Yes, of course he will.” Footnote 1 Additionally, The New York Times published an article discussing what the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh mean for abortion rights. Footnote 2 The Guardian explicitly stated that the pick of Kavanaugh, accused of sexual assault, is “all about extending male power over female bodies – our anger will not subside.” Footnote 3

This public discourse suggests a view that because Kavanaugh has engaged in unethical behavior toward women outside of the courtroom, he will be a threat to women’s rights inside of the courtroom. We seek to address this by examining whether people view a judge accused of discriminatory misconduct outside of the courtroom as a threat inside of the courtroom to the rights of the group they target (e.g., women, racial minorities, or ethnic minorities). We find that a judge accused of discriminatory misconduct is not only viewed as a threat to the rights of the group they target but to other marginalized groups as well and is viewed as less able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to said groups.

Judicial impartiality

Given legitimacy is of the utmost importance for courts, scholars have dedicated much attention to the factors that can taint public perceptions of impartiality. Campaign contributions can harm perceptions of institutional legitimacy (Gibson Reference Gibson2009) and fairness (Gibson and Caldeira Reference Gibson and Caldeira.2013), as can politicized campaign ads (Gibson et al. Reference Gibson, Gottfried, Delli Carpini and Jamieson.2011). More recently, Ono and Zilis (Reference Ono and Zilis2022) found that female and Hispanic judges are stereotyped to be biased in favor of their ingroup and thus less able to rule fairly in immigration and abortion cases. Badas and Justus (Reference Badas and Justus2023) find that respondents who believed there to be more millionaire justices on the Supreme Court were more inclined to state the Court was less legitimate and biased in favor of the wealthy. Scholars have also addressed the ways in which judicial scandal can shape perceptions of legitimacy. For instance, it has been demonstrated that such scandals can harm specific support for the Court, but not diffuse support (Boston et al. Reference Boston, Kassow, Masood and Miller2023). Our project contributes to this literature by demonstrating the ways in which judicial misconduct, especially that which is discriminatory in nature, can shape perceptions of impartiality.

Public expectations of judges and the implications of misconduct

In theorizing about expectations pertaining to impartiality, we start by assuming the US public has expectations for judges both in terms of how they should conduct themselves and how they should go about making decisions. Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states, “judges of both the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.” While what constitutes good behavior is open for debate, it suggests there is some expectation or ethical standard for how judges are to conduct themselves. Other institutional features of the judiciary ensure independent decision-making. Judges are expected to act as unbiased, neutral decision-makers who are impartial in their rulings. A primary component of procedural justice theory is “neutrality in the process,” meaning the public values fair decision-making that is not dominated by one particular interest (Gangl Reference Gangl2003). Research has demonstrated that the public is more supportive of judicial decision-making that is unbiased and grounded in the law (Baird Reference Baird2001; Scheb and Lyons Reference Scheb and Lyons.2000; Tyler and Rasinski Reference Tyler and Rasinski1991) and void of partisanship (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse Reference Hibbing and Theiss-Morse1995). For example, the public expects judges to be guided more by legal justifications (Farganis Reference Farganis2012), precedent (Zink, Spriggs, and Scott Reference Zink, Spriggs and Scott.2009), and intent of the Founders (Scheb and Lyons Reference Scheb and Lyons2001) and less influenced by ideology or partisanship when making decisions. In other words, the public generally expects judges to refrain from letting their own biases determine how they will decide cases. It also appears that the public is willing to reward or punish lawmakers based on their judicial confirmation votes (Badas and Simas Reference Badas and Simas2022).

Not only does the public expect this type of ethical, impartial behavior from judges, but the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires it both in and out of the courtroom. Canon 2A explicitly states, “Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct.” Footnote 4 This includes how they conduct themselves on social media as well. State supreme courts are increasingly updating their codes of conduct to include statements on social media use. For example, the Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct states, “Judges must carefully monitor their social media accounts to ensure that no communication can be reasonably interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice…”Footnote 5 We also observe instances of judges being reprimanded for inappropriate behavior online. For example, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded a judge who posted discriminatory comments on social media.Footnote 6

Further, judges and justices themselves want to be viewed as impartial and aim to promote the legitimacy of the judiciary (Epstein and Knight Reference Epstein and Knight1998; Epstein, Landes, and Posner Reference Epstein, Landes and Posner2013; Posner Reference Posner2010; Glennon and Strother Reference Glennon and Strother2019). Evidence suggests that judges (Burke and Leben Reference Burke and Leben2007) and judicial councils (Vickrey, Denton, Jefferson Reference Vickrey, Denton and Jefferson2012), at least at the lower levels, are aware of the importance of procedural fairness in shaping public perceptions of the courts and that they strive to achieve this standard. Judges, like other public officials, are concerned with their personal reputation as well. They consider how a wide range of audiences such as their colleagues on the bench, other branches of government, social groups, professional groups such as bar associations, and the public perceive them and therefore work to preserve their personal image and reputation (Baum Reference Baum2006). Baum (Reference Baum2006) suggests judges are concerned with their “self-presentation” and desire to be liked and respected by those in their social community.

Allegations of harassment and discrimination can be deleterious to the legitimacy of the accused, such as a judge, as the behavior itself is outside of the expectations set for judges and because it expresses the potential for biased decision-making. It is not surprising that making racist or sexist comments is indicative of broader attitudes toward the targeted group and would lead people to view the judge as being biased toward said group. This extends to behaviors as well. For example, engaging in sexual harassment can be indicative of broader attitudes toward women. Hostile sexism (Diehl et al. Reference Diehl, Rees and Bohner.2018; Krings and Facchin Reference Krings and Facchin.2009; Masser et al. Reference Masser, Viki and Clair.2006; Russell and Trigg Reference Russell and Trigg.2004) and authoritarian attitudes (Begany and Milburn Reference Begany and Milburn2002) predict the proclivity to engage in sexual misconduct. Thus, sexual misconduct indicates more hostile attitudes toward women. Individuals holding such attitudes are likely to engage in biased decision-making, especially as it pertains to the rights of women.

Judges play an important role in deciding civil rights cases and often hear cases pertaining to the rights of women and racial and ethnic minorities. As such, we expect to find that judges accused of discriminatory behavior will be viewed as a threat to the rights of the group they target (H1). In other words, we expect judges who engage in discriminatory behavior toward women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities to be viewed as a threat to those groups. We also expect to find that judges accused of discriminatory behavior will be viewed as less likely to rule fairly on cases involving the affected group (H2).

Research design

We implemented a survey experiment with 2,536 respondents Footnote 7 on the CloudResearch Connect platform in May 2023 to test our hypotheses. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of ten conditions where we manipulated who was targeted (a woman, a racial minority, or an ethnic minority), the type of misconduct, and whether it was physical or nonphysical in nature. The control conditions include misconduct that does not target a specific person or group of people. We include forms of threat that are physical in nature alongside comparable forms of misconduct that are not physical in nature, as people react differently to physical threat versus nonphysical threat (e.g., social threat) (Goldin et al. Reference Goldin, Manber, Hakimi, Canli and Gross.2009; Landmann et al. Reference Landmann, Gaschler and Rohmann.2019). For example, people show a higher emotional reactivity to nonphysical threat (e.g., social threat) as opposed to physical threat (Goldin et al. Reference Goldin, Manber, Hakimi, Canli and Gross.2009). Since emotions are tied to political attitudes, we expect the distinction between physical threat and nonphysical threat to be important. Table 1 below shows the main vignette as well as the treatment and control conditions.

Table 1. Treatment and control conditions

After reading the vignette, respondents were presented with a series of questions asking about their perceptions of the judge; here we are specifically interested in whether they felt the judge was a threat to the rights of women, racial minorities, and ethnic minoritiesFootnote 8 and whether they were perceived as able to rule fairly on matters related to these groups.Footnote 9 We also asked several demographic questions such as gender, age, race and ethnicity, income, ideology, party identification, political knowledge, and interest and included questions to measure sexist attitudes (Glick and Fiske Reference Glick and Fiske1996; Swim et al. Reference Swim, Aikin, Hall and Hunter.1995) and racial and ethnic resentment (Kinder and Sanders Reference Kinder and Sanders1996). Footnote 10

To test our first hypothesis, that judges accused of discriminatory behavior will be viewed as a threat to those they target, we run an ordinary least squares regression. The dependent variables measure the extent to which the respondent agreed with the statement “the judge is a threat to the rights of [women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities].” These were coded on a 1–6 scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree so an increase means an increase in perceived threat.Footnote 11 The independent variables were the treatment and control conditions. The nonphysical control condition was used as the baseline. The model includes control variables for respondent gender, party identification, conservatism, race (white), income, racial resentment, ethnic resentment, and sexism, which are not reported for simplicity.

The results are in Figure 1 below. Note that the coefficients for the physical control condition (i.e., a judge who caused a car accident while driving under the influence) are not statistically significant (p = .79, p = .61, and p = .53 in the models, respectively), suggesting that relative to a judge who engages in nonphysical, nondiscriminatory misconduct (i.e., using his status to get out of a ticket), there is no difference in perceptions of whether the judge is viewed as a threat to rights. Importantly, Figure 1 demonstrates that judges accused of discriminatory misconduct are viewed as a threat to the rights of the group that they target, as hypothesized. Interestingly, we also find that such judges are also viewed as a threat to other minoritized groups as well. For example, a judge who is accused of discriminatory misconduct towards a woman is also viewed as a threat to the rights of racial and ethnic minorities. One notable distinction is the effect sizes between treatment groups.Footnote 12 For example, in the nonphysical sexual harassment condition, where a woman was the target of the misconduct, there was a 1.89-point increase in stating the judge was a threat to the rights of women, relative to the control (p < .001). However, there were only a .757 and .718-point increases in stating the judge was a threat to the rights of racial and ethnic minorities, respectively, relative to the control (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). That is over a 1-point difference between agreement with the judge being a threat to the rights of women and the judge being a threat to the rights of racial and ethnic minorities. This extends to the treatment conditions where the judge targeted racial and ethnic minorities as well. For example, in the physical ethnic discrimination condition where the judge called immigration authorities on a Hispanic individual speaking in their native language, there was a 1.90-point increase in believing that the judge was a threat to the rights of ethnic minorities (p < .001) and 1.86-point increase in believing that the judge was a threat to the rights of racial minorities (p < .001), relative to the control, but only a .432 point increase in believing the judge was a threat to the rights of women (p < .001). Thus, while respondents view judges accused of discriminatory behavior toward one group as a threat to the rights of others as well, they are more likely to say the judge is a threat to the specific group targeted.

Figure 1. Judge is a threat to the rights of….

Next, we test hypothesis 2, that judges accused of misconduct toward a particular group will be viewed as less able to rule fairly in cases pertaining to said group. We use the same methods stated above; only the dependent variables measure agreement with the statement “this judge will rule fairly on matters related to the rights of [women, racial minorities, ethnic minorities].” This is measured on a 6-point scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. As such, we expect the coefficients to be in the opposite direction so that misconduct leads to a decrease in the perception that the judge will rule fairly. As done above, the full model includes control variables for respondent gender, party identification, conservatism, race (white), income, racial resentment, ethnic resentment, and sexism which are not reported for simplicity.

Similar to our findings above, Figure 2 below demonstrates that judges who are accused of misconduct are viewed as less able to rule fairly on matters related to the groups they target, relative to the control of nondiscriminatory misconduct. In addition, they are also viewed as less able to rule fairly on matters related to other minoritized groups. Note that the effect sizes are much larger based on the treatment condition, as before. Those who were in the conditions where the judge was accused of discriminatory misconduct toward a racial or ethnic minority saw larger decreases in the belief that the judge was able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to said groups, relative to the control. These effect sizes were smaller, though still statistically significant, for women, relative to the control.

Figure 2. Judge able to rule fairly on matters related to….

Our findings have important implications for how the public views judges and their ability to act impartially and suggests that misconduct outside of the courtroom can influence how people perceive the judge inside of the courtroom. Specifically, judges who engage in discriminatory misconduct are viewed as a threat to the rights of marginalized groups more generally, not just the specific group their behavior targeted. They are also viewed as less able to rule fairly on matters pertaining to said groups.

Conclusion

In a time marked by the United States Senate debate on judicial ethics, we sought to better understand how unethical behavior outside of the courtroom influences public opinion. More specifically, in this paper, we examine whether judges accused of discriminatory behavior outside of the courtroom are viewed as a threat inside of the courtroom to the rights of the group they target. To assess this, we implemented a survey experiment that manipulated who was targeted (a woman, a racial minority, or an ethnic minority), the type of misconduct, and whether it was physical or nonphysical in nature. We found that compared with judges accused of misconduct that is not discriminatory in nature (i.e., using status to get out of a traffic ticket), judges who are accused of discriminatory misconduct are viewed not only as a threat to the rights of the group their behavior targeted but to the rights of marginalized groups (e.g., women, racial, and ethnic minorities) across the board. Respondents also stated the judge was less likely to rule fairly on matters that pertained to these groups. Our findings show that a judge’s unethical behavior outside of the courtroom has important consequences for how the public views the judge’s ability to perform his job inside of the courtroom both in terms of the judge’s ability to rule fairly and the threat he poses to rights.

Future research may wish to expand on the effects of physical versus nonphysical threats, as the literature suggests there might be differences in intensity of attitudes. We find that both types of misconduct shape perceptions of the judge as a threat to the rights of minoritized groups. Another fruitful area to extend this research is examining the effects of unethical behavior of different types of political actors. Prior work has found that accusations of sexual misconduct can diminish the popularity of a president (Klar and McCoy Reference Klar and McCoy2022) and shift public opinion on party issue ownership (Holman and Kalmoe Reference Holman and Kalmoe2024); the next step in this research is to look at the effects of ethical wrongdoings of various types of political actors on the threat to individual rights. A limitation of our work is that we focus specifically on a white, male judge. Given existing work demonstrates racial differences in cue-taking from elite messaging (Kuklinski and Hurley Reference Kuklinski and Hurley1994) and public opinion differences in response to questionable statements between male and female political candidates (Simas and Murdoch Reference Simas and Murdoch2020), future work should focus on intersecting identities and vary the demographic and political identities of the judge. Relatedly, future work should examine whether perceptions of the judge’s characteristics vary based on the intersecting identities of the respondents.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2024.8.

Data availability

The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1FBS1Y.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Ethics statement

This study received Institutional Review Board approval (protocol #:2023–0121).

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

1 John Bowden, “Hillary Clinton: ‘Of course’ Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade,” The Hill, <https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/405159-clinton-of-course-kavanaugh-will-vote-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/>

2 Ross Douthat, “The Kavanaugh Accusation Is Dangerous for the Pro-Life Movement,” The New York Times, <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/opinion/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-senate-hearing.html>

3 Suzanne Moore, “If Brett Kavanaugh makes it through, women’s anger will be unstoppable,” The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/trump-assault-abortion-kavanaugh-women-voices-bodies>

5 The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois’ Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here <https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/57ea945a-7c76-4c12-bc26-d18155e21312/070122.pdf>

6 The National Center for State Courts recently published a “Social Media and Judicial Ethics Up-date” that includes instances where state courts changed their codes of conduct to include statements on social media as well as a plethora of examples of judges who were disciplined for inappropriate behavior on social media. It can be found here <https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0036/87498/Social-Media-Update-Jan-23.pdf>

7 One individual was dropped for entering an invalid response on the age category.

8 We ask all respondents to evaluate threat to all three disadvantaged groups (women, racial minorities, and ethnic minorities) because it could be the case that if a judge does something potentially threatening to one disadvantaged group, people view them as a threat to any disadvantaged person, regardless of the group. We measure attitudes about all three groups to better understand this.

9 The survey included question batteries about whether the judge was viewed as a threat to rights, how the judge would rule on various cases, and the judges’ ability to rule fairly, trust in government, and court legitimacy.

10 Question wording and coding located in section A of the supplementary materials.

11 The n and means for each condition located in sections B and C of the supplementary materials. Full models with coefficients for respondent demographics in section E.

12 These differences are statistically significant. See section F of the supplementary materials.

References

Badas, Alex, and Justus, Billy. 2023. “Millionaire Justices and Attitudes Towards the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, Alex, and Simas, Elizabeth. 2022. “The Supreme Court as an Electoral Issue: Evidence from Three Studies.” Political Science Research and Methods 10: 4967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A. 2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly 54: 333–54.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begany, Joseph J., and Milburn, Michael A.. 2002. “Psychological Predictors of Sexual Harassment: Authoritarianism, Hostile Sexism, and Rape Myths.” Psychology of Men and Masculinity 3(2): 119126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, Joshua, Kassow, Benjamin J., Masood, Ali S., and Miller, David R.. 2023. “Your Honor’s Misdeeds: The Consequences of Judicial Scandal on Specific and Diffuse Support.” PS: Political Science and Politics 56(2): 195200.Google Scholar
Burke, Kevin, and Leben, Steve. 2007. “Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction.” Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association 44(1/2): 425.Google Scholar
Diehl, Charlotte, Rees, Jonas, Bohner., Gerd 2018. “Predicting Sexual Harassment from Hostile Sexism and Short-Term Mating Orientation: Relative Strength of Predictors Depends on Situational Priming of Power Versus Sex. Violence Against Women 24(2): 123143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Farganis, Dion. 2012. “Do Reasons Matter? The Impact of Opinion Content on Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly 65(1): 206216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangl, Amy. 2003. “Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process.” Political Behavior 25: 119149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2009. “New-style” Judicial Campaigns and the Legitimacy of State High Courts.” The Journal of Politics 71(4): 12851304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira., Gregory A. 2013. Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10(1): 76103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Gottfried, Jeffrey A., Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Jamieson., Kathleen Hall 2011. The effects of judicial campaign activity on the legitimacy of courts: A survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly 64(3): 545558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennon, Colin, and Strother, Logan. 2019. “The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric.” Journal of Law and Courts 7(2): 241261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, Peter, and Fiske, Susan T.. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Between Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3): 491512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin, Philippe R., Manber, Tali, Hakimi, Shabnam, Canli, Turhan, and Gross., James J. 2009. “Neural bases of social anxiety disorder: emotional reactivity and cognitive regulation during social and physical threat.” Archives of General Psychiatry 66(2): 170180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2024. “Partisanship in the# MeToo era.” Perspectives on Politics 22: 4461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, and McCoy, Alexandra. 2022. “The #MeToo Movement and Attitudes Toward President Trump in the Wake of a Sexual Misconduct Allegation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 10(5): 837846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krings, Franciska, and Facchin., Stéphanie 2009. “Organizational Justice and Men’s Likelihood to Sexually Harass: The Moderating Role of Sexism and Personality.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94(2), 501510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L.. 1994. “On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking.” The Journal of Politics 56(3): 729751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landmann, Helen, Gaschler, Robert, and Rohmann., Anette 2019. What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration. European Journal of Social Psychology 49(7): 14011420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masser, Barbara, Viki, G. Tendayi, and Clair., Power 2006. “Hostile Sexism and Rape Proclivity Amongst Men.” Sex Roles 54, 565574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Yoshikuni, and Zilis, Michael A.. 2022. “Ascriptive Characteristics and Perceptions of Impropriety in the Rule of Law: Race, Gender, and Public Assessments of Whether Judges Can Be Impartial.” American Journal of Political Science 66(1): 4358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2010. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Brenda L., and Trigg., Kristen Y. 2004. “Tolerance of Sexual Harassment: An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles.” Sex Roles 50: 565573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheb, John M. II, and Lyons., William 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly 81(4): 928940.Google Scholar
Scheb, John M. II, and Lyons, William. 2001. Judicial Behavior and Public Opinion: Popular Expectations Regarding the Factors that Influence Supreme Court Decisions. Political Behavior 23: 181194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. and Murdoch, Doug. 2020. “‘I Didn’t Lie, I Misspoke’: Voters’ Responses to Questionable Campaign Claims.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 7: 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swim, Janet, Aikin, Katheryn J., Hall, Wayne S., and Hunter., Barbara A. 1995. “Sexism and Racism: Old Fashion and Modern Prejudices.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(2): 199214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Rasinski, Kenneth. 1991. “Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson.” Law and Society Review 25(3): 621630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickrey, William C., Denton, Douglas G., and Jefferson, Wallace B.. 2012. “Opinions as the Voice of the Court: How State Supreme Courts Can Communicate Effectively and Promote Procedural Fairness.” Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association 48(3): 7485.Google Scholar
Zink, James R., Spriggs, James F. II, and Scott., John T. 2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” The Journal of Politics 71(3): 909925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Treatment and control conditions

Figure 1

Figure 1. Judge is a threat to the rights of….

Figure 2

Figure 2. Judge able to rule fairly on matters related to….

Supplementary material: File

Baker and Canelo supplementary material

Baker and Canelo supplementary material
Download Baker and Canelo supplementary material(File)
File 64.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Baker and Canelo Dataset

Link