IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v85y2004i1p1-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Age Matter? Judicial Decision Making in Age Discrimination Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth L. Manning
  • Bruce A. Carroll
  • Robert A. Carp

Abstract

Objective. Drawing upon research that suggests that race and gender may shape judicial views about legal issues pertaining to these attributes, this study conducts an investigation of the influence of age on judicial decision making in age discrimination cases. Methods. This research analyzed 544 age bias rulings and 1,592 decisions in racial and gender discrimination cases handed down in the federal district courts from 1984 to 1995. Descriptive statistics incorporating cross‐product ratios were analyzed, and logit models were developed. Predicted probabilities were utilized to isolate differences in predicted decision‐making patterns for different age cohorts. Results. The youngest judges were least sympathetic to those who alleged that they were victims of age discrimination while the oldest judges were the most sympathetic to age discrimination claimants. This study also identified a generally more conservative decision‐making pattern in age cases compared to cases dealing with racial and gender discrimination. Conclusions. The data support the hypothesis that increased age corresponds with increased pro‐elderly decision making in age bias cases, though the effects appear at the age extremes among the very oldest and youngest judges. These results provide new evidence to support the social attribute model of judicial decision making, with a clear suggestion that some socioeconomic variables may affect judges' decision making differently over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth L. Manning & Bruce A. Carroll & Robert A. Carp, 2004. "Does Age Matter? Judicial Decision Making in Age Discrimination Cases," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:85:y:2004:i:1:p:1-18
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501001.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501001.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501001.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2006. "Gender differentials in judicial proceedings: field evidence from housing related cases in Uruguay," Documentos de Investigación 31, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    2. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    3. Brent D. Boyea, 2010. "Does Seniority Matter? The Conditional Influence of State Methods of Judicial Retention," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 209-227, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:85:y:2004:i:1:p:1-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.