When Donald Trump finally gave his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, he spoke to a record number of elected women in Congress. And currently, no fewer than five high-profile female candidates have already declared to run against him in 2020. Perhaps the time for female leadership might be here, with female candidates not just “electable,” but in some ways preferred, at least by the liberal side of the spectrum in a #MeToo era and in the wake of the Trump election and Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Some have asked, especially after Hillary Clinton’s narrow Electoral College loss, whether there is still an implicit bias against female leadership. If you ask people, they’ll likely say “No.” But if you dig deeper, there’s a different story.

New research indicates that the prejudice against female leaders is higher than we think. And one reason for that is that it’s higher than we’re willing to say. The study, conducted by two German researchers (Hoffmann & Musch, 2018), used an indirect-questioning technique called a “Crosswise Model” that randomizes responses so that the participants and researchers both know that responses cannot be tied to particular individuals. When using that method, people are significantly more likely to admit to a prejudice against female leaders: 23 percent admitted in response to direct questions, but more than half again as much, 37 percent, admitted to the bias when guaranteed anonymity in their response. Interestingly, while the prevalence of that bias is greater in men (45 percent), the tendency to hide one’s true response was greater in women: with 10 percent acknowledging the bias in response to direct questions, but 28 percent doing so in anonymous questioning. The study involved German subjects (typically more progressive than Americans), but in light of the larger research on “social desirability bias,” there’s good reason to believe that it is a simple human tendency: People mask their responses in order to manage their public image. Of course, in jury selection, there is no point in allowing anonymous answers. But the research findings regarding anonymous response differences provide a few reminders on improving the candor of potential jurors in voir dire as well as in mock trial research settings.

The findings regarding views on female leaders carry implications for female executives in the witness box, and also for the female attorneys at the lectern: The bias is not disappearing as quickly as we would hope. But the findings regarding the concealment of bias have implications for all attempts to discover and address juror attitudes. Here are a few reminders on getting past social desirability and getting to more accurate attitudes.

Use a Questionnaire

Earlier this week, I was in court selecting a jury on a case that involves claims of sexual abuse. The judge conducted questioning about past experience in either being a victim of abuse or being accused of abuse. He did this despite the fact that we also had a questionnaire that asked some of the same questions. So, interestingly, we were able to conduct a kind of head-to-head test of people’s habits of responding verbally in open court versus responding on a paper form, which gives the feeling of greater anonymity. Of course, it should not come as a surprise that several people who did not raise their hands when asked in open court, did report a relevant experience on their paper questionnaire. This tendency toward greater candor on paper is also supported by the research. One study (Chang & Krosnick, 2010), for example, found that self-administered questionnaire responses were significantly less susceptible to various forms of response bias when compared to oral interview responses.

Create a Context for Disclosure

You won’t always have a specific questionnaire. But even when you are fortunate enough to have one, you will want to follow up with verbal questioning whenever possible. When you’re verbally questioning, you need to consciously account for all of the elements of the situation that serve to restrict disclosure – a group of strangers in a formal courtroom with a judge looking on and a court reporter recording everything – and you need to try to open it up. So make sure they understand that this is a situation where they are expected to honestly share what they don’t usually share and model some of that self-disclosure yourself by sharing some of your own attitudes and giving examples of cases where you might not be the right fit for the jury. For example, “I’m an environmentalist and I drive a Prius. So, if this were a environmental complaint involving the big oil companies – it isn’t, but if it were – then I might not be the right juror for that kind of case.”

Look Where They Are Less Guarded

It is a fact of our times that many people tend to overshare a bit on their social media. The carefully cultivated public image that they show in an oral interview in the courtroom might be wildly different from the unfiltered thoughts, pictures, and “likes” they will include in their various online profiles. So, this is another reminder to supplement your jury selection with a look at the public online activity of your panel. It is necessary to be systematic, and also to be ethical, in avoiding anything that could be construed as contact with jurors. Such searches can be hit-and-miss by nature. But when they do hit, the additional information can really help in providing a more complete view of the views of those who might sit in judgment on your case.

______________________

Hoffmann, A., & Musch, J. (2018). Prejudice against Women Leaders: Insights from an Indirect Questioning Approach. Sex Roles, 1-12.

Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license