Closing With Emotion

The Differential Impact of Male Versus Female Attorneys Expressing Anger in Court

Schweitzer N.J.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Emotion expression is a key part of trial advocacy. Attorneys are advised to gain credibility with juries by demonstrating conviction through anger expression. In 3 experiments, we tested whether expressing anger in court makes attorneys more effective and whether this depends on their gender. We randomly assigned participants (n = 120 undergraduates) to view a male or female attorney presenting the same closing argument in either a neutral or angry tone (Experiment 1). They reported their impressions of the attorney and how likely they would be to hire the attorney. People used the positive aspects of anger (e.g., conviction, power), to justify hiring an angry male attorney. Yet, they used the negative aspects of anger (e.g., shrill, obnoxious), to justify not hiring a female attorney. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 with a community sample (n = 294). Experiment 3 (n = 273) demonstrated that the attorney anger by gender interaction generalized to perceptions of effectiveness across a set of additional attorney targets. Finally, a high-powered analysis collapsing across experiments confirmed that when expressing anger relative to when calm, female attorneys were seen as significantly less effective, while angry male attorneys were seen as significantly more effective. Women might not be able to harness the persuasive power of expressing anger in the courtroom, which might prevent female attorneys from advancing in their careers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 25 2018

Fingerprint

Lawyers
Anger
anger
Emotions
emotion
experiment
hiring
gender
Emotion
credibility
career
Experiment
interaction
community

Keywords

  • Discrimination
  • Emotion
  • Gender
  • Legal decision making
  • Trial advocacy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Closing With Emotion : The Differential Impact of Male Versus Female Attorneys Expressing Anger in Court. / Schweitzer N.J.

In: Law and Human Behavior, 25.06.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a9e03d4bc7cf4497a7a03fc9d96c4c46,
title = "Closing With Emotion: The Differential Impact of Male Versus Female Attorneys Expressing Anger in Court",
abstract = "Emotion expression is a key part of trial advocacy. Attorneys are advised to gain credibility with juries by demonstrating conviction through anger expression. In 3 experiments, we tested whether expressing anger in court makes attorneys more effective and whether this depends on their gender. We randomly assigned participants (n = 120 undergraduates) to view a male or female attorney presenting the same closing argument in either a neutral or angry tone (Experiment 1). They reported their impressions of the attorney and how likely they would be to hire the attorney. People used the positive aspects of anger (e.g., conviction, power), to justify hiring an angry male attorney. Yet, they used the negative aspects of anger (e.g., shrill, obnoxious), to justify not hiring a female attorney. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 with a community sample (n = 294). Experiment 3 (n = 273) demonstrated that the attorney anger by gender interaction generalized to perceptions of effectiveness across a set of additional attorney targets. Finally, a high-powered analysis collapsing across experiments confirmed that when expressing anger relative to when calm, female attorneys were seen as significantly less effective, while angry male attorneys were seen as significantly more effective. Women might not be able to harness the persuasive power of expressing anger in the courtroom, which might prevent female attorneys from advancing in their careers.",
keywords = "Discrimination, Emotion, Gender, Legal decision making, Trial advocacy",
author = "{Schweitzer N.J.} and Jessica Salerno and Phalen, {Hannah J.} and Nicholas Schweitzer",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1037/lhb0000292",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Closing With Emotion

T2 - The Differential Impact of Male Versus Female Attorneys Expressing Anger in Court

AU - Schweitzer N.J.

AU - Salerno, Jessica

AU - Phalen, Hannah J.

AU - Schweitzer, Nicholas

PY - 2018/6/25

Y1 - 2018/6/25

N2 - Emotion expression is a key part of trial advocacy. Attorneys are advised to gain credibility with juries by demonstrating conviction through anger expression. In 3 experiments, we tested whether expressing anger in court makes attorneys more effective and whether this depends on their gender. We randomly assigned participants (n = 120 undergraduates) to view a male or female attorney presenting the same closing argument in either a neutral or angry tone (Experiment 1). They reported their impressions of the attorney and how likely they would be to hire the attorney. People used the positive aspects of anger (e.g., conviction, power), to justify hiring an angry male attorney. Yet, they used the negative aspects of anger (e.g., shrill, obnoxious), to justify not hiring a female attorney. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 with a community sample (n = 294). Experiment 3 (n = 273) demonstrated that the attorney anger by gender interaction generalized to perceptions of effectiveness across a set of additional attorney targets. Finally, a high-powered analysis collapsing across experiments confirmed that when expressing anger relative to when calm, female attorneys were seen as significantly less effective, while angry male attorneys were seen as significantly more effective. Women might not be able to harness the persuasive power of expressing anger in the courtroom, which might prevent female attorneys from advancing in their careers.

AB - Emotion expression is a key part of trial advocacy. Attorneys are advised to gain credibility with juries by demonstrating conviction through anger expression. In 3 experiments, we tested whether expressing anger in court makes attorneys more effective and whether this depends on their gender. We randomly assigned participants (n = 120 undergraduates) to view a male or female attorney presenting the same closing argument in either a neutral or angry tone (Experiment 1). They reported their impressions of the attorney and how likely they would be to hire the attorney. People used the positive aspects of anger (e.g., conviction, power), to justify hiring an angry male attorney. Yet, they used the negative aspects of anger (e.g., shrill, obnoxious), to justify not hiring a female attorney. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 with a community sample (n = 294). Experiment 3 (n = 273) demonstrated that the attorney anger by gender interaction generalized to perceptions of effectiveness across a set of additional attorney targets. Finally, a high-powered analysis collapsing across experiments confirmed that when expressing anger relative to when calm, female attorneys were seen as significantly less effective, while angry male attorneys were seen as significantly more effective. Women might not be able to harness the persuasive power of expressing anger in the courtroom, which might prevent female attorneys from advancing in their careers.

KW - Discrimination

KW - Emotion

KW - Gender

KW - Legal decision making

KW - Trial advocacy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049046358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049046358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000292

DO - 10.1037/lhb0000292

M3 - Article

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

ER -