No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Justice Isn’t Blind: Attorney Attractiveness and Success in US Federal Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2024
Abstract
Many court observers have argued that judges are capable of avoiding the use of extraneous factors in decision-making. This study examines the influence of seemingly irrelevant heuristics on real-world courtroom proceedings. Drawing on theories from neighboring disciplines, I hypothesize that physically attractive attorneys have greater success in US federal court. Using a generalizable causal inference strategy and a dataset of over 1,000 cases and 3,000 votes, I find support for my expectations using multiple measures of attractiveness. These findings raise serious normative concerns about equality and underscore the need to adjust traditional models of judicial behavior to account for inherent biases.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association
Footnotes
†
Assistant Research Director, Center for State Policy and Leadership, PAC 464, One University Place, Springfield, IL 62703; nwate3@uis.edu.
The author thanks Joshua Boston, Lee Epstein, Pauline Kim, William Lowry, Andrew Martin, Jessica Schoenherr, Alan Simmons, James Spriggs, Amy Steigerwalt, Justin Wedeking, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments in the creation of this article. Previous versions of this study were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, at the 2021 New Directions in Law and Society Workshop at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and at a 2022 meeting of the Washington University in St. Louis American Politics Workshop. Replication materials are available at the Journal of Law and Courts Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OVMN95.
References
Adams, Gerald R., and Cohen, Allan S.. 1974. “Children’s Physical and Interpersonal Characteristics That Effect Student-Teacher Interactions.” Journal of Experimental Education 43(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarie, Benjamin, and Green, Andrew J.. 2017. Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts: A Cross-Country Examination of Institutional Constraints on Judges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aldisert, Ruggero J. 2010. Winning on Appeal: Better Briefs and Oral Argument. Boulder, CO: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boncheck, Mark S., and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Boyatzis, Chris J., Baloff, Peggy, and Durieux, Cheri. 1998. “Effects of Perceived Attractiveness and Academic Success on Early Adolescent Peer Popularity.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 159(3): 337–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brase, Gary L., and Richmond, Jillian. 2004. “The White–Coat Effect: Physician Attire and Perceived Authority, Friendliness, and Attractiveness.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34(12): 2469–2481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2008. Friends of the Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1924. “Constitutional Law in 1922-1923: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1922.” American Political Science Review 18(1): 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Frank B. 2007. Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMeis, Debra Kanai, and Turner, Ralph R.. 1978. “Effects of Students’ Race, Physical Attractiveness, and Dialect on Teachers’ Evaluations.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 3(1): 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, Karen, Berscheid, Ellen, and Walster, Elaine. 1972. “What is Beautiful is Good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(3): 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dipboye, Robert L., Fromkin, Howard L., and Wiback, Kent. 1975. “Relative Importance of Applicant Sex, Attractiveness, and Scholastic Standing in Evaluation of Job Applicant Resumes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60(1): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. Chris, and Lyons, Phillip M.. 1991. “Natural Observations of the Links between Attractiveness and Initial Legal Judgments.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(5): 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Parker, Christopher M., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2018. “Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate? An Analysis of In-Group Bias on the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts 6(2): 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Fong, Christian, Hazlett, Chad, and Imai, Kosuke. 2018. “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score for a Continuous Treatment: Application to the Efficacy of Political Advertisements.” Annals of Applied Statistics 12(1): 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieze, Irene Hanson, Olson, Josephine E., and Russell, June. 1991. “Attractiveness and Income for Men and Women in Management 1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21(13): 1039–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, David C., Beehr, Terry A., and Love, Kevin G.. 1986. “Effects of Applicant Sex, Applicant Physical Attractiveness, Type of Rater and Type of Job on Interview Decisions.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 59(2): 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Nabanita Datta, Etcoff, Nancy L., and Jaeger, Mads M.. 2016. “Beauty in Mind: The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Psychological Well-Being and Distress.” Journal of Happiness Studies 17(3): 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2007. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93: 1.Google Scholar
Hadjistavropoulos, Heather D., Ross, Michael A., and Von Baeyer, Carl L.. 1990. “Are Physicians’ Ratings of Pain Affected by Patients’ Physical Attractiveness?” Social Science & Medicine 31(1): 69–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamermesh, Daniel S., and Parker, Amy. 2005. “Beauty in the Classroom: Instructors’ Pulchritude and Putative Pedagogical Productivity.” Economics of Education Review 24(4): 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis 15(3): 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2011. “Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 106(493): 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2019. “A Theory of Statistical Inference for Matching Methods in Causal Research.” Political Analysis 27(1): 46–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Ratkovic, Marc. 2014. “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2009. “The Digital Archives of Justices Blackmun and Powell Oral Argument Notes.” Available at http://users.polisci.umn.edu/~trj/oanotes93.php.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1982. “On the Study of Statistical Intuitions.” Cognition 11(2): 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P. 2020. “Race, Context, and Judging on the Courts of Appeals: Race-Based Panel Effects in Death Penalty Cases.” Justice System Journal: 1–22.Google Scholar
Kropp, Sabine. 2010. “German Parliamentary Party Groups in Europeanised Policymaking: Awakening from the Sleep? Institutions and Heuristics as MPs’ Resources.” German Politics 19(2): 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S., and Lawson, Chappell. 2011. “Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance.” American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 574–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, Robert C., Zhang, Shaobo, Preacher, Kristopher J., and Rucker, Derek D.. 2002. “On the Practice of Dichotomization of Quantitative Variables.” Psychological Methods 7(1): 19–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maroney, Terry A. 2015. “Why Choose? A Response to Rachlinski, Wistrich and Guthrie’s ‘Heart Versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?.’ ” Texas Law Review 93(1): 317–330.Google Scholar
Martineau, Robert J., Sinclair, Kent, Solomine, Michael E., and Holland, Randy J.. 2005. Appellate Practice and Procedure. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Meissner, Christian A., and Brigham, John C.. 2001. “Thirty Years of Investigating the Own-Race Bias in Memory for Faces: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 2004. “How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(1): 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monin, Benoît. 2003. “The Warm Glow Heuristic: When Liking Leads to Familiarity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(6): 1035–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, Michael J., and Epstein, Lee. 2021. “Human Capital in Court: The Role of Attorney Experience in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Journal of Law and Courts. doi: 10.1086/714577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordholm, Lena A. 1980. “Beautiful Patients Are Good Patients: Evidence for the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype in First Impressions of Patients.” Social Science & Medicine. Part A: Medical Psychology & Medical Sociology 14(1): 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, David M. 1981. Judges on Judging: Views from the Bench. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Olivola, Christopher Y., Tingley, Dustin, and Todorov, Alexander. 2018. “Republican Voters Prefer Candidates Who Have Conservative-Looking Faces: New Evidence from Exit Polls.” Political Psychology 39(5): 1157–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Joseph W. 2012. A Judge’s View: Things Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges; Things They Do That Impress Judges. Toronto, ON: Family Law Institute.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Wistrich, Andrew J., and Guthrie, Chris. 2015. “Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments: Distorted Damages and Skewed Sentences.” Indiana Law Journal 90(2): 695–739.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Guthrie, Chris, and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2007. “Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 163(1): 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Johnson, Sheri Lynn, Wistrich, Andrew J., and Guthrie, Chris. 2009. “Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?” Notre Dame Law Review 84(3): 1195–1247.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70(1): 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Anontin, and Garner, Brian A.. 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spamann, Holger. 2015. “Empirical Comparative Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 11: 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spamann, Holger, and Klöhn, Lars. 2016. “Justice is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45(2): 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Robert L., Gressman, Eugene, Shapiro, Stephen M., and Geller, Kenneth S.. 2002. Supreme Court Practice. 8th ed. Arlington, VA: Bureau of National Affairs, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Stewart, John E. 1980. “Defendant’s Attractiveness as a Factor in the Outcome of Criminal Trials: An Observational Study 1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10(4): 348–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockemer, Daniel, and Praino, Rodrigo. 2017. “Physical Attractiveness, Voter Heuristics and Electoral Systems: The Role of Candidate Attractiveness under Different Institutional Designs.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(2): 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, Edward L. 1920. “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology 4(1): 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Alexander, Mandisodza, Anesu N., Goren, Amir, and Hall, Crystal C.. 2005. “Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes.” Science 308(5728): 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasby, Stephen L. 1981. “Oral Argument in the Ninth Circuit: The View from Bench and Bar.” Golden Gate University Law Review 11(1): 21–79.Google Scholar
Wedeking, Justin. 2010. “Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing.” American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeden, Jason, and Sabini, John. 2007. “Subjective and Objective Measures of Attractiveness and Their Relation to Sexual Behavior and Sexual Attitudes in University Students.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 36(1): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinshall, Keren, and Epstein, Lee. 2020. “Developing High-Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17(2): 416–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowitz, Leslie A., and McDonald, Susan M.. 1991. “The Impact of Litigants’ Baby-Facedness and Attractiveness on Adjudications in Small Claims Courts.” Law and Human Behavior 15(6): 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterbury supplementary material
Waterbury supplementary material
File
292.3 KB