[ad_1]
Credit: CC0 Public Domain
In a silent audience room, a lawyer rides on a lectern to deliver a closing argument. The accused in the case is accused of murder, having stabbed a woman to death in front of her baby.
"He beat her in the face," said the lawyer, hammering his fist on the lectern, his voice rising. After killing the victim, the accused "fled the apartment and left behind him Kendall, a year old, alone with his mother's body".
The case and the closing argument were real. The lawyer was acting. In total, six attorneys with trial experience – three men and three women – performed identical reenactments of the closing argument of a psychology study at Arizona State University. The study shows that sexist prejudices distort the way people perceive the effectiveness of a lawyer when expressing anger.
According to the study "Closing with Emotion: The differential impact of men against female lawyers expressing anger at the court", published June 25 in the review Law and human behaviorMale and female viewers found that male lawyers were angry, powerful, competent and kind. They found angry, sour, hysterical, raspy and ineffective lawyers.
"A good lawyer should show traditionally masculine characteristics in court, anger, aggression, power, but men benefit, while we penalize women to show these same characteristics," said Jessica Salerno, Professor of Psychology at the ASU. and principal investigator on the study. "We watch so many dramas in the courtrooms where lawyers express emotions, and there are fireworks in the courtroom. People are waiting for it that lawyers express themselves in this way.
Previous studies have found that showing emotion in various situations harms women while benefiting men. However, these past studies are established in situations where the emotion is unexpected, such as a business meeting.
Salerno and her team, including Hannah J. Phalen, ASU doctoral candidate, Rosa Reyes, graduate student at the ASU, and Nicholas J. Schweitzer, associate professor at the School of Science at the ASU ASU behavior and social sciences, wanted to organize an emotion. .
In this case, a lawyer delivering a closing argument in a horrific murder case. Thus, the research team gathered nearly 700 participants to watch videos of actors delivering the closing argument. Participants shared their impressions about lawyers, and whether or not they would hire them.
"We asked the participants how much they thought the actors were angry," said Salerno. "The participants had the impression that men and women were also angry, but unfortunately, we reproduced the results found in other studies: angry men proved to be more effective and viewers wanted to hire them. women were less efficient and they wanted to hire them less. "
Moreover, women and men have felt the same, which, according to Salerno, shows that this bias operates at an implicit level.
"We are all growing up in the same culture," she said. "We are exposed to the same gender stereotypes, which means that women lawyers are not able to demonstrate the belief and power that men expect from men, with unfortunate long-term consequences for their careers and their effectiveness. with the juries. "
Explore further:
Study shows angry men gain influence and angry women lose influence
Source link
