Here comes the judge: The influence of judge personal characteristics on federal sexual harassment case outcomes

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 69-86

  Kulik, Carol T ^a   Perry, Elissa L ^b   Pepper, Molly B ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Demographics; Hostile environment; Sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DEMOGRAPHY; GENDER; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LEGAL ASPECT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERSONALITY; POLITICS; RACE; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; ADULT; AGED; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CIVIL RIGHTS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CIVIL RIGHTS; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DECISION MAKING; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLITICS; PREJUDICE; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037314424     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021678912133     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adler, R. S., & Peirce, E. R. (1993). The legal, ethical, and social implications of the "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment cases. Fordham Law Review, 61, 773-827.
2. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 409-416.
3. Batson, C. D., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J. L., Decruz, P., Todd, R., Weeks, J., et al. (1996). "I've been there, too": Effect on empathy of prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 474-482.
4. Bowes-Sperry, L., & Tata, J. (1999). A multiperspective framework of sexual harassment. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 263-280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33-87.
6. Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
7. Carp, R. A., & Rowland, C. K. (1983). Policy making and politics in the federal district courts. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
8. Federal Magistrate Judges Association. (2000). The FMJA is a professional organization exclusively for U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Bulletin: The Newsletter of the FMJA, 26 [On-line]. Available from http://www.fedjudge.org/
9. Ford, C. A., & Donis, F. J. (1996). The relationship between age and gender in workers' attitudes toward sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology, 130, 627-633.
10. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773-798.
11. Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-37.
12. Frazier, P. A., & Hunt, J. S. (1998). Research on gender and the law: Where are we going, where have we been? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1-16.
13. Goldman, S. (1979). Should there be affirmative action for the judiciary? Judicature, 62, 488-494.
14. Goldman, S. (1987). The age of judges: Reagan's second-term appointees. ABA Journal, 73, 94-98.
15. Goldman, S., & Saronson, M. D. (1994). Clinton's nontraditional judges: Creating a more representative bench. Judicature, 78(2), 68-73.
16. Gottschall, J. (1983). Carter's judicial appointments: The influence of affirmative action and merit selection on voting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Judicature, 67(4), 164-173.
17. Gowan, M. A., & Zimmermann, R. A. (1996). Impact of ethnicity, gender, and previous experience on juror judgments in sexual harassment cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 596-617.
18. Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymakers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 308-322.
19. Gryski, G, S., Main, E. C., & Dixon, W. J. (1986). Models of state high court decision making in sex discrimination cases. Journal of Politics, 48, 143-155.
20. Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447-467.
21. Hastie, R., & Viscusi, W. K. (1998). What juries can't do well: The jury's performance as a risk manager. Arizona Law Review, 40, 901-921.
22. Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235-252.
23. Hurt, J. L., Maver, J. A., & Hofmann, D. (1999). Situational and individual influences on judgments of hostile environment sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1395-1415.
24. Knapp, D. E., & Heshizer, B. P. (1999). Outcomes of requests for summary judgments in federal sexual harassment cases: Policy-capturing revisited. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
25. Kretser, R. (1992). Women and minorities on the judiciary. New York State Bar Journal, 64, 8-9.
26. Kritzer, H. M. (1978). Political correlates of the behavior of federal district judges: A 'best case' analysis. Journal of Politics, 40, 25-58.
27. Kritzer, H. M., & Uhlman, T. M. (1977). Sisterhood in the courtroom: Sex of judge and defendant in criminal case disposition. The Social Science Journal, 14, 77-88.
28. Kulik, C. T., & Perry, E. L. (1994). Heuristic processing in organizational judgments. In L. Heath, F. Bryant, J. Edwards, E. Henderson, J. Myers, E. Posavac, et al. (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (Vol. 3, pp. 185-204). New York: Plenum.
29. Lamb, C. M. (1976). Exploring the conservatism of federal appeals court judges. Indiana Law Journal, 51, 257-279.
30. Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(2), 296-319.
31. Martin, E. (1990). Men and women on the bench: Vive la difference? Judicature, 73(4), 204-208.
32. Marvell, T. B. (1978). Appellatecourts and lawyers: Information gathering in the adversary system. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
33. Murrell, A. J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges, and future directions. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 51-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (2000). The reasonable woman standard: Effects on sexual harassment court decisions. In R. Done (Chair), Sexual harassment policy effects: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Symposium conducted at Academy of Management meetings, Toronto, August, 2000.
35. Plater, M. A., & Thomas, R. E. (1998). The impact of job performance, gender, and ethnicity on the managerial review of sexual harassment allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 52-70.
36. Pryor, J. B., & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 405-417.
37. Quinn, J. R. (1996). "Attitudinal" decision making in the federal courts: A study of constitutional self-representation claims. San Diego Law Review, 33, 701-754.
38. Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B. J., & Franklin, G. M. (1995-96). An exploratory study of the reasonable woman standard: Gender-bias in interpreting actionable sexual harassment. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 4, 1-14.
39. Roehling, M. V. (1993). "Extracting" policy from judicial opinions: The dangers of policy capturing in a field setting. Personnel Psychology, 46, 477-502.
40. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.
41. Rowland, C. K., & Carp, R. A. (1996). Politics and judgment in federal district courts. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
42. Smith, S. M. (1993). Diversifying the judiciary: The influence of gender and race on judging. University of Richmond Law Review, 28, 179-204.
43. Summers, R. J. (1991). Determinants of judgments of and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 25, 379-392.
44. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185-194.
45. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1992). Outcomes of federal court decisions on sexual harassment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 181-190.
46. Uhlman, T. M. (1978). Black elite decision making: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 884-895.
47. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex, 29 CFR Part 1604.11.
48. Valentine-French, S., & Radtke, H. L. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545-555.
49. Walker, T. G., & Barrow, D. J. (1985). The diversification of the federal bench: Policy and process ramifications. The Journal of Politics, 47, 596-617.
50. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
51. Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900-912.
52. Wright, B. M. (1973). A black brood on black judges. Judicature, 57(1), 22-23.