[ad_1]
Men who respond with anger in group deliberations are more likely to influence others, while women who do the same are considered overly emotional and their dissent is dismissed. A study found that male anger caused mock jurors to question their opinions, while female dissent made them more confident.
Findings from a 2015 study published in the journal Law and Human Behavior reinforce the idea that when men respond strongly, even with obvious anger, in group deliberations, they are more likely to influence other people to agree with them. . However, in the classic double standard style, women who do the same thing are considered overly emotional and their dissent is considered counterproductive. “Our findings provide scientific support for a frequent claim made by women,” said the researchers, that their views are “sometimes dismissed as paranoia.”
When jurors get angry:
In the study, 210 college students examined evidence and read eyewitness testimony from a real-life murder trial. After making a preliminary decision on guilt or innocence, the students discussed the case in an online chat environment, which was actually written in advance.
When lone dissenters, with usernames that were obviously male or female, were introduced, the researchers were able to observe how study participants reacted to a violent and angry dissent, and whether they changed their minds about the guilt or innocence of the suspected.
The mock jurors questioned their own opinions “significantly after the male expressed anger,” the researchers wrote. However, when it appeared that a female resister was rabidly dissenting, jurors became “more confident” in their opinions.
