EUGENE BORGIDA is Professor of Psychology and Adjunct Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Minnesota. He recently completed stints as Associate Dean for Research and Planning in the University of Minnesota's College of Liberal Arts and as a member of SPSSI Council. Borgida received his undergraduate degree from Wesleyan University and his Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Michigan in 1976. His research interests include social cognition, psychology and law, and political psychology. He is currently working on two books—a monograph with Tom R. Tyler on social psychology and law for Westview Press' series on New Directions in Social Psychology, and a text with John L. Sullivan on political psychology for Cambridge University Press.
On the Courtroom Use and Misuse of Gender Stereotyping Research
Article first published online: 14 APR 2010
1995 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Journal of Social Issues
Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 181–192, Spring 1995
How to Cite
Borgida, E., Rudman, L. A. and Manteufel, L. L. (1995), On the Courtroom Use and Misuse of Gender Stereotyping Research. Journal of Social Issues, 51: 181–192. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01316.x
- Issue published online: 14 APR 2010
- Article first published online: 14 APR 2010
Expert psychological testimony in recent sex discrimination and sexual harassment cases has presented fact finders with a conceptual framework for understanding the antecedents and consequences of gender stereotyping. In this article, we focus on perhaps the most scientifically complex aspect of research on gender stereotyping—namely, the role that individuating information plays in stereotypical thinking. Although a preponderance of evidence suggests that stereotypes are likely to influence impressions and evaluations when perceivers have either minimal or ambiguous information about another person, there is the potential for attorneys and even some expert witnesses to misconstrue this aspect of the scientific data base. We review briefly pertinent findings on the relationship between stereotypes and individuating information, and discuss some of the reasons why this evidence could be misrepresented.