Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Gender
Description
The objective of this study is to determine if female attorneys are penalized for expressing anger, while male attorneys gain influence when they express anger. I hypothesized that angry male attorneys would be perceived as having more positive traits and less negative traits than calm male attorney. In contrast, I hypothesized that angry female attorneys would be perceived as having more negative traits and less positive traits than calm female attorneys. I hypothesized that, as a result, participants would be more likely to hire the angry male attorney than the calm male attorney, while they would be less likely to hire the angry female attorney than the calm female attorney. After having participants view a video of attorneys giving closing arguments, whether it be angry or calm, male or female and having them answer questions, I found that both attorneys were characterized as having both more positive and negative traits than calm attorneys—regardless of their gender. In regards to the likelihood of being hired, I found that angry male attorneys were more likely to be hired than calm male attorneys. In contrast, angry female attorneys were less likely to be hired than calm female attorneys. Thus, although participants found both male and female angry (versus calm) attorneys high on negative and positive characteristics, they were more likely to hire the angry (versus calm) male attorney, which is consistent with previous research showing men are seen as more competent when expressing anger. These data suggest that there might be a systematic bias against women who try to exert influence in the courtroom by expressing anger.
ContributorsReyes, Rosa Natalie (Author) / Salerno, Jessica (Thesis director) / Neal, Tess (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
This study hypothesizes that a sampling of prosecutors would be more likely to prosecute juveniles who identify as homosexual versus those who identify as heterosexual. To test this hypothesis, surveys were mailed to 1,000 prosecutors around the United States with a between subject design, meaning that each participant was only exposed to one condition in the vignette they read. There were a total of four vignettes, creating four conditions of different sexual orientations and gender in sexually appropriate relationships. The vignettes contain conditions in which either a male or female junior in high school was videotaped having oral sex with either a male or a female freshman in high school. Prosecutors were asked questions about whether they would prosecute the older student for statutory rape. Results indicated that our manipulations of sexual orientation and gender were not statistically significant on prosecutorial discretion or punishment severity/motives, however, these manipulations did alter the prosecutor's perceptions of the offender.
ContributorsCaraveo Parra, Diana Patricia (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05