We examine judge bias in Olympic figure skating as an exploratory analysis of a leading constructivist approach to identity using quantitative methods more closely associated with non-constructivist social science. While constructivism is a major theoretical orientation in international relations, large-n quantitative studies of the approach are uncommon in large measure due to the principal argument of constructivists: that interests should be treated endogenously. If interests and identities are mutually constituted, thenitwouldseemtobeimpossibletodistinguishtheireffects,creatingaproblemofobservationalequivalence.Someconstructivist theorists nevertheless suggest that under certain conditions material interests can be thought of as causes of collective identity, meaning that it is in principle possible to isolate the influence of identity.We build on this “bounded” version of constructivism by identifyinganarenaofinternationalrelationsinwhichtheobservableeffectoftheidentitiesconstitutedbyinteractionsamongstates can be analyzed independent of those states’ national security concerns. We study whether collective identities constituted by the internationalsystemduringtheColdWarsystematicallyinfluencedjudgebiasinOlympicfigureskating,examiningwhetherjudges’ evaluations of skaters systematically vary according to whether their respective states viewed one another as “friends,” “rivals,” or “enemies.”