Date of Project

4-7-2026

Document Type

Honors Thesis

School Name

College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Sociology

Major Advisor

Dr. Heather Pruss

Second Advisor

Dr. Courtney Keim

Abstract

This quantitative study examines how gender and emotional expression influence mock jurors' perceptions of an attorney's courtroom effectiveness. Using mock jurors, this study extends previous research suggesting that assertiveness and emotional displays are evaluated differently by gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of four closing statements in a mock burglary trial. The videos were of either a male or a female attorney delivering a passive or an aggressive argument. Participants then evaluated the attorney’s effectiveness across four categories: competence, persuasiveness, ability to instill confidence, and emotionality. Male participants generally rated female attorneys as less effective than female participants did, particularly in areas of persuasiveness and confidence. Additionally, male participants evaluated aggressive female attorneys as less effective than passive female attorneys, suggesting bias against women displaying emotions that oppose stereotypical gender expectations of emotion. Finally, female participants rated aggressive female attorneys as more effective than aggressive male attorneys, indicating differing perceptions of emotional expression between genders. The results of this study highlight implicit gender bias in the courtroom and the dynamics that may disadvantage women. The study contributes to a broader understanding of how gender and emotion intersect to shape professional evaluations in the legal field.

Download

Share

COinS