IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Masculinity Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Chen
  • Yosh Halberstam
  • Alan C L Yu

Abstract

Previous studies suggest a significant role of language in the court room, yet none has identified a definitive correlation between vocal characteristics and court outcomes. This paper demonstrates that voice-based snap judgments based solely on the introductory sentence of lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States predict outcomes in the Court. In this study, participants rated the opening statement of male advocates arguing before the Supreme Court between 1998 and 2012 in terms of masculinity, attractiveness, confidence, intelligence, trustworthiness, and aggressiveness. We found significant correlation between vocal characteristics and court outcomes and the correlation is specific to perceived masculinity even when judgment of masculinity is based only on less than three seconds of exposure to a lawyer’s speech sample. Specifically, male advocates are more likely to win when they are perceived as less masculine. No other personality dimension predicts court outcomes. While this study does not aim to establish any causal connections, our findings suggest that vocal characteristics may be relevant in even as solemn a setting as the Supreme Court of the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Chen & Yosh Halberstam & Alan C L Yu, 2016. "Perceived Masculinity Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164324
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164324
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164324&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164324?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Moskowitz, Tobias J. & Shue, Kelly, 2016. "Decision-Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence From Asylum Courts, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," IAST Working Papers 16-43, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    2. Daniel L. Chen & Tobias J. Moskowitz & Kelly Shue, 2016. "Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(3), pages 1181-1242.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Philippe, Arnaud, 2023. "Clash of norms judicial leniency on defendant birthdays," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 324-344.
    2. Alejandro Núnez Arroyo, 2018. "Information seeking with selective memory," Documentos CEDE 17131, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    3. Payzan-LeNestour, Elise & Pradier, Lionnel & Putniņš, Tālis J., 2023. "Biased risk perceptions: Evidence from the laboratory and financial markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2021. "Fragile Algorithms and Fallible Decision-Makers: Lessons from the Justice System," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 71-96, Fall.
    5. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2020. "Interview Sequences and the Formation of Subjective Assessments," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 045, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Maria R. Ibanez & Michael W. Toffel, 2020. "How Scheduling Can Bias Quality Assessment: Evidence from Food-Safety Inspections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2396-2416, June.
    7. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    9. James Wang, 2020. "Screening soft information: evidence from loan officers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 1287-1322, December.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Duc Duy Nguyen & Steven Ongena & Shusen Qi & Vathunyoo Sila, 2022. "Climate Change Risk and the Cost of Mortgage Credit [Does climate change affect real estate prices? Only if you believe in it]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(6), pages 1509-1549.
    12. Chen, Daniel L. & Halberstam, Yosh & Yu, Alan, 2016. "Covering: Mutable Characteristics and Perceptions of (Masculine) Voice in the U.S. Supreme Court," IAST Working Papers 16-38, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Feb 2020.
    13. Benjamin Radoc, 2020. "Bandit with similarity information," Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Working Paper Series 202002, Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University.
    14. Maximilian Späth & Daniel Goller, 2023. "Gender differences in investment reactions to irrelevant information," CEPA Discussion Papers 67, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Shrestha, Maheshwor, 2019. "Death scares: How potential work-migrants infer mortality rates from migrant deaths," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    17. Anna Bindler & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Path Dependency in Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1971-2017.
    18. Jon Kleinberg & Annie Liang & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2017. "The Theory is Predictive, but is it Complete? An Application to Human Perception of Randomness," PIER Working Paper Archive 18-010, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 09 Aug 2017.
    19. Gagnon-Bartsch, Tristan & Bushong, Benjamin, 2022. "Learning with misattribution of reference dependence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    20. Oliphant, Wesley & Ma, Hong, 2021. "Applying Behavioral Economics to microcredit in China’s rural areas," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    21. Sultan Mehmood & Avner Seror & Daniel L. Chen, 2022. "Religious Rituals: Evidence from Ramadan," Working Papers hal-03899724, HAL.
    22. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2023. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(4), pages 818-832, July.

    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:plo:pone00:0164324. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.