Impact of Lawyer Sex, and Lawyer and Defendant Use of Polite Language on Observer’s Perception of the Lawyer’s Job Performance and Credibility, and Verdict Outcome

Abstract

Sex-role stereotypes set expectations for the behavior of men and women both in everyday life and in the workplace. In general, men tend to be expected to be more agentic, while women are expected to be more communal. Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987) posits that the reason these traits are stereotypically associated with these particular sex roles is because men and women traditionally tend to be divided into different roles, in both the home and the workplace. The roles that men typically perform tend to have more agentic or instrumental characteristics, while the roles that women typically perform tend to have more communal or relational characteristics; therefore, these traits tend to become associated with the sex of the group most commonly placed in those roles. This can be a problem when women go into occupations that are dominated by men, as the occupational role expectancies conflict with sex-role expectancies. Further, various language characteristics also tend to be associated more with a particular sex role, such as politeness, which tends to be more stereotypically associated with women. Given that the legal profession tends to be more dominated by men, the current study examines how: the sex of a lawyer, the lawyer’s politeness level, and the politeness level of the defendant the lawyer is examining, all work together to affect observer’s views of the lawyer’s credibility, job performance, and verdict outcomes. In general, results indicated that lawyers are more persuasive than defendants, and that polite lawyers are more likable. Implications of this research are discussed, as are limitations of the study. Suggestions for future research are also presented.