Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000585
Hannah J Phalen, Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Emily N Line, Sara N Thomas, Rose E Eerdmans, Taylor C Bettis, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno
{"title":"Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams.","authors":"Hannah J Phalen, Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Emily N Line, Sara N Thomas, Rose E Eerdmans, Taylor C Bettis, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There are documented gender disparities in the legal field. We examined whether gender representation on civil trial teams varied on the basis of (a) the degree of regional gender bias \"in the air\" and (b) time.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that women were underrepresented both on trial teams and in leadership roles within those teams. We predicted that these gender disparities were exacerbated in regions with stronger regional gender bias and that these gender disparities attenuated over time.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We coded attorney gender and case outcomes in real civil trials (<i>N</i> = 655). We created regional implicit and explicit gender bias scores based on the year and region of the case using Project Implicit data. Finally, we used order-constrained inference and Bayesian modeling to identify the best-performing models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, women represented only 17% of attorneys at trial and 13% in leadership roles-indicating vast gender disparities. Gender disparities on teams and in leadership roles were more extreme in regions with high (vs. low) regional gender bias (teams: Bayes factor [BF] = 9,182; leadership: BF = 91,667) and improved over time (teams: BF = 6,420; leadership: BF = 3,495). Gender alone best predicted the likelihood of serving in a leadership role (BF = 1,197,397).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Female attorneys were grossly underrepresented on civil trial teams. Gender representation on teams, but not leadership roles, has improved slightly over time. Culture may also contribute; women were less represented on trial teams in regions with greater gender bias in the air-particularly in leadership roles. Despite these slight improvements in representation on trial teams over time and in low-bias regions, gender disparities in leadership roles persist over time and levels of regional bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000585","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: There are documented gender disparities in the legal field. We examined whether gender representation on civil trial teams varied on the basis of (a) the degree of regional gender bias "in the air" and (b) time.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that women were underrepresented both on trial teams and in leadership roles within those teams. We predicted that these gender disparities were exacerbated in regions with stronger regional gender bias and that these gender disparities attenuated over time.

Method: We coded attorney gender and case outcomes in real civil trials (N = 655). We created regional implicit and explicit gender bias scores based on the year and region of the case using Project Implicit data. Finally, we used order-constrained inference and Bayesian modeling to identify the best-performing models.

Results: Overall, women represented only 17% of attorneys at trial and 13% in leadership roles-indicating vast gender disparities. Gender disparities on teams and in leadership roles were more extreme in regions with high (vs. low) regional gender bias (teams: Bayes factor [BF] = 9,182; leadership: BF = 91,667) and improved over time (teams: BF = 6,420; leadership: BF = 3,495). Gender alone best predicted the likelihood of serving in a leadership role (BF = 1,197,397).

Conclusions: Female attorneys were grossly underrepresented on civil trial teams. Gender representation on teams, but not leadership roles, has improved slightly over time. Culture may also contribute; women were less represented on trial teams in regions with greater gender bias in the air-particularly in leadership roles. Despite these slight improvements in representation on trial teams over time and in low-bias regions, gender disparities in leadership roles persist over time and levels of regional bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
地区性别偏见和年份可预测民事审判团队中的性别比例。
目标:在法律领域存在有据可查的性别差异。我们研究了民事审判团队中的性别代表性是否会因(a)"空气中 "的地区性别偏见程度和(b)时间而有所不同:我们假设,妇女在审判团队和团队领导岗位上的代表性都不足。我们预测,在地区性别偏见较强的地区,这些性别差异会加剧,并且随着时间的推移,这些性别差异会减弱:我们对真实民事审判中的律师性别和案件结果进行了编码(N = 655)。我们利用 "隐性项目 "的数据,根据案件的年份和地区创建了地区隐性和显性性别偏见分数。最后,我们使用有序约束推理和贝叶斯建模来确定表现最佳的模型:总体而言,女性律师在审判中仅占 17%,在领导岗位上仅占 13%,这表明性别差异巨大。在地区性别偏见较高(与较低)的地区,团队和领导职位中的性别差异更为严重(团队:贝叶斯系数 [BF] = 9,182;领导职位:贝叶斯系数 = 91,667),并且随着时间的推移有所改善(团队:贝叶斯系数 = 6,420;领导职位:贝叶斯系数 = 3,495)。性别本身最能预测担任领导职务的可能性(BF = 1,197,397):结论:女性律师在民事审判团队中的代表性严重不足。随着时间的推移,团队中的性别比例略有提高,但担任领导职务的比例却没有提高。文化也可能是原因之一;在空气中性别偏见较严重的地区,女性在审判团队中的代表性较低,尤其是在领导岗位上。尽管随着时间的推移和偏差较小的地区,女性在试验团队中的代表性略有提高,但领导岗位上的性别差异仍然随着时间的推移和地区偏差的程度而存在。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence. Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth. Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams. Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt. The structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1