Archive for the ‘It’s hard to be a woman’ Category
We are again honored by our inclusion in the ABA Blawg 100 list for 2014. If you value this blog, please take a moment to vote for us here in the Litigation Category. Voting closes on December 19, 2014. Doug and Rita
Back in August we wrote a post on a study saying women are lied to more in negotiations. One of our readers re-tweeted the post and added, “Happy Women’s Equality Day”. Another article from the same research group says women are more likely than men to trust a liar again after they learn of deception.
The authors we are studying today conducted three separate studies to assess gender differences in trust following deception (or what the authors refer to as a trust violation). Their findings were consistent:
Women trust more than men after a deception.
Women are less likely than men to lose trust in others following transgressions.
Women are more likely than men to re-establish trust after repeated transgressions.
It seems to be about socialization–women want to maintain relationships and that desire results in a gender difference in trust after a “trust violation”. If these results are accurate, it is no wonder men keep lying to women. Women are willing to believe the apology. Women, say the authors, are more forgiving, and more motivated to work through relationship problems. We could go on at some length about these findings but instead we want to focus on one of the measures they used to assess the importance of maintaining a relationship. We had never heard of this scale before but it has a terrific name: The Unmitigated Communion Scale. And the 9 items in the scale below (taken from the article published in 1999) highlight the differences we continue to see between men and women in 2014.
The items in this scale were designed to measure a focus on others even when that focus resulted in one’s own detriment back in 1999. And we still get gender differences in responses to the seemingly dated questions from this scale in 2014? Wow. Just wow.
Haselhuhn, M., Kennedy, J., Kray, L., Van Zant, A., & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104-109 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.007
Fritz, H., & Helgeson, V. (1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 121-140 DOI: 10.1037//0022-35220.127.116.11
Or if you already are a mother, do not have any more children. On the other hand, if you are a man, have as many children as you would like. And preferably with a woman who doesn’t mind taking a dramatic payroll hit at work. With children (as a man) you get an average 11.6% bump in your salary according to this report. The author opines that fatherhood “is a valued characteristic of employers, signaling perhaps greater work commitment, stability, and deservingness”.
But we must remind you that this applies only if you are a man who is a father. And if you are a woman? According to today’s research report, with every additional child, you lose another 4% in income. So it isn’t just gender that reduces your salary. It’s having children as well. And yes. It is an article written in 2014. Don’t shoot the messenger here, it isn’t our research or our vision of a “just world”.
“For men, it’s just the status of being a father that raises their wages. For women, each additional child she has makes the penalty worse.”
Becoming a mother means women will earn less over their lifetimes while fathers earn more. This is but a small part of the disconcerting, disturbing, and depressing findings in a new report from the Third Way think tank. You may wonder what happened to the 2010 ABC World News report of women now earning 8% more than men. Well, that report only referred to young (early career) and childless women–not women with children.
Michelle Budig, the author of this report, calls what happens to women the “life cycle effect”. She points out the small gender gap in pay for 20-somethings (women earn about 96 cents on the dollar compared to men). That small gender salary gap grows as you hit 30-something and then 40-something though, and Budig thinks it is because of developmental milestones like marriage and children.
“Things happen in people’s lives like marriage and children, that trigger new behaviors and differential treatment in the workplace” for men and women.
Specifically, she says, the period between age 35 and age 44 is when we generally see the largest growth in salaries. This is also the time when many college-educated women stop delaying childbearing and are actively involved in caring for young children.
A caveat to this news comes if you are at the top of the salary distribution. If you are a man you get an even larger fatherhood bonus. And if you are a woman, while you don’t get a bigger bonus for being at the top of the income distribution, there is no motherhood penalty at all.
Another caveat also relates to privilege. White fathers receive larger fatherhood bonuses that Latinos or African-American men. In fact, African-American men have the lowest fatherhood bonus of any racial/ethnic group.
Budig suggests stereotypes of what makes a “good mother”, a “good father” and a “good worker” are likely at play here. If we believe that mothers should be focused on caring for children over workplace/career ambitions, they “will be suspect on the job and even criticized if viewed as overly focusing on work”. The opposite is apparently true for fathers who are likely perceived as trying hard to be a “good provider”.
From a workplace perspective, this report is a pointed reminder of the importance of identifying (and using) concrete, behavioral indicators for salary increases. That is one way to avoid making salary decisions based on stereotypes that cast either a halo effect (on fathers) or the opposite (on mothers). Creating a professional environment that welcomes both men and women means having specific indicators of “success” that apply equally to all employees, regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, or parenthood status.
Budig, M. 2014 The fatherhood bonus and the motherhood penalty: Parenthood and the gender gap in pay. Third Way.
More than two decades after the 1993 Revitalization Act was signed (stating women and minorities must be included in NIH funded research), females are still under-represented in both “basic science and translational surgical research”.
The authors acknowledge that medical research on human subjects is only a small subset of all medical research. However, even those studies using animals and cells have females under-represented. Why? Females, whether cell, animal or human (due to hormonal fluctuations) are harder and more expensive to study and including them may make the research much more complex to analyze. They are simply not as predictable as male cells, animals or humans.
Yet, there is a growing body of research showing “men and women may manifest diseases differently, experience illnesses differently, and benefit from treatments differently”. The authors list disease processes where male and female patients respond differently, including “but not limited to cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, depression, obesity, osteoporosis, thyroid disorders, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer’s Disease”. Yet, the authors tell us, in 2014, “all medications except for zolpidem (Ambien) are dosed the same for men and women, including anesthetics and chemotherapeutics, drugs that can be lifesaving”.
This is a fascinating (and disturbing) article to read and we will simply hit the high points (or should that be low points?). The authors looked at the top 5 surgery journals (i.e., Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery) from January 2011 through December 2012. Here is some of what they found on medical research:
One-third of all publications using animals or cells did not specify the sex studied, and when they did specify, 80% studied only males.
For research on cells, 76% did not specify the sex of the subject from whom the cell studied was drawn. When they did specify, 71% studied only males.
Although a larger percentage of publications now state sex of the animal or cell studied than they did one and two decades ago, more male-only studies are being published. The authors say this reflects the sex disparity in basic research is growing rather than decreasing over time.
Thyroid and cardiovascular disease are female-prevalent disorders and so we might expect more female subjects in those articles. Only 12% of those publications studied females or both sexes.
The authors offer several memorable quotes:
“With robust and surmounting evidence that women are clearly different from men with respect to cardiovascular mortality, it is unacceptable that less than 25% of current cardiovascular trials are designed without apparent regard to sex in terms of trial design, patient selection, and analytic processes.”
“Furthermore, recent population-based outcome studies show that even as mortality has decreased in most counties in the United States from 1992 to 2006, female mortality increased in 42.8% of these counties.”
This, say the authors, is not simply a problem of surgical research, but rather, based on recent review articles, “sex disparity is pervasive across all disciplines for biomedical and clinical research, with most studies showing no improvements over time”.
The good news is that several of the surgical journals revised their requirements after receiving this information from the authors. Now all authors are required to state the sex of the animal or cell used and if they did not use both sexes, they need to give a rationale. It’s a good first step, but certainly not a solution to such a significant problem in medical research. This article does not address whether minorities also remain under-represented, but we’d take a wild guess they may be as well.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, it is worth considering whether this work applies to a personal injury Plaintiff. If there are known differences between how male and female patients respond to a particular disease or surgical procedure or medication–check to see if their treatment was appropriate for their gender or if a female patient was treated “like a man”. These authors (some of them surgeons) cite a 2005 study showing “only one in five physicians across multiple specialties was aware that more women than men die from cardiovascular disease each year, and most of these physicians did not rate themselves as effective in treating sex-tailored cardiovascular disease”. Similarly, product liability cases involving medical products or medicines could be informed by this research as well.
What should they have known?
What should they have considered?
What would it have cost them to use both male and female research participants?
Yoon DY, Mansukhani NA, Stubbs VC, Helenowski IB, Woodruff TK, & Kibbe MR (2014). Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery, 156 (3), 508-516 PMID: 25175501
Back in 2012, we wrote about which gender was the more moral in negotiations. (Spoiler alert: it was women.) Now we have a new article on why women get lied to in negotiations. Not when or if–but why. Basically, people believe women are more easily misled than men and people believe women to be less competent than men. Therefore, “negotiators deceived women more so than men, thus leading women into more deals under false pretenses than men”. The researchers completed three separate studies and (to add insult to injury) these were not experiments using the ubiquitous undergraduate. These research participants were adults in the working world.
In Study 1, 131 employees (75 male and 56 female) at an online marketing research website participated in the research. (Gender was the only demographic information collected so we don’t know their educational backgrounds, average age or racial identity.) Participants were asked to imagine they were selling a used car and posted an ad on a community website. They were then approached by a male (or female) buyer. The participants were told that the buyer appeared to be a typical (male or female) negotiator. They were then asked to rate the imagined buyer on eight different traits: warmth, kindness, business sense, ambition, gullible, naïve, arrogance or stubborn. The researchers added four additional traits: easily misled, impulsive, confident and knowledgeable.
Women were perceived as both less competent and more easily misled in negotiations than were men. (These variables were derived using multiple traits rated by participants: Ease of being misled = Easily misled + Gullible + Naïve + Impulsive; and Competence = Good business sense + Confident + Knowledgeable + Ambitious.)
In Study 2, 394 employees (116 female, average age 32 years, 74% White, 7% Black, 5% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 1% Native American and 2% ‘other’) at Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in the research. These participants were asked to imagine someone (the Seller) was selling an antique chair said to be worth $1,250 according to a popular buying guide. However, one of the legs was broken and would cost $250 to repair correctly. Instead, the Seller fixed it temporarily knowing it would become wobbly again with use. The only way the Buyer would know the chair was defective is if the information was disclosed by the Seller. Again, a male and female buyer approached the Seller.
Again, women were perceived as more easily misled and as less competent. Women were believed to be less able to detect deception on the part of the Seller.
Undaunted, the researchers continued on to Study 3. This time the participants were 298 full-time MBA students (221 of whom were male) enrolled in a negotiations course. They were paired into 149 dyads (65 male-male, 23 female buyer-male seller, 48 male buyer-female seller, and 13 female-female). Research participants completed the “Bullard Houses” role-playing exercise which basically simulates a real estate transaction. They were randomly assigned to negotiate as the buyer’s agent or the seller’s agent. The buyers’ agents could either tell the truth, misrepresent, or tell an outright lie about their intentions in order to lure the sellers’ agents into a deal. And you will never see this finding coming.
Female negotiators were deceived more than male negotiators.
The researchers say that women at the negotiating table are going to be offered less favorable deal terms (based on past research) and they are going to be lied to more often than men. As the researchers looked more closely at the ways in which women were deceived, they found that women were told more blatant lies than were men and men tended to be told the truth. The researchers summarize their findings this way:
“The gender bias in deception appears driven by a greater propensity to tell women blatant lies in a situation in which men tend to be told the truth.”
This study is disheartening for any number of reasons, and it raises questions about how universal this general pattern is. From a litigation advocacy perspective, this series of studies tends to indicate women may simply be lied to rather than being allowed to engage in actual negotiations about case issues. Are they more subject to men failing to properly disclose in discovery? More often victims of spoliation of evidence? Dirty tricks at trial?
The researchers wonder if their findings could help explain the gender gap at high levels in business organizations. Women, say the researchers, may shy away from negotiations since they will be lied to and thus be at increased risk of entering into deals on the basis of false pretenses. While okay as a hypothesis worthy of testing, it is not at all supported by evidence. Let’s see an experimental design that looks at “what do women do when they know that they are being lied to by men?”. And, let’s be clear– it is more than ironic (“sexist” comes to mind) to think of this in terms of women somehow being less effective because of their weariness over men lying to them. Aren’t we talking here about being lied to? By men? We would say that until the social stereotype that women are easy to mislead is changed, and men stop lying in ways that are less likely when dealing with other men, awareness will do little to change the outcomes of their negotiations, mediations, and settlement talks.
Kray, LJ, Kennedy, JA, & Van Zant, AB (2014). Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
This is something we’ve told our clients about for a number of years because it simply made sense. Now we have a current research citation for it rather than using research that is more than a decade old! We see this “new” strategy as a variation on the “you may want to disagree” strategy–or, perhaps, as an update.
What we especially like about this one is that it tells us how to make something totally implausible seem more acceptable to the listener. Say, something implausible like….Bigfoot! Actually, it goes beyond that. This research shows us how to increase the likelihood you can convince others of supernatural events having occurred. It’s all, as you may have surmised, about the narrative frame. You do not, say the authors, want to begin your narrative by starting off with an admission of long-standing beliefs in the frankly bizarre. That would totally undermine your credibility. Instead, begin by presenting yourself as a skeptic of such events. The authors explain it in this, uniquely academic, fashion:
“The presentation of the evidence that converted the narrator within the account itself offers the audience an invitation to go on the same journey from scepticism to belief along with the narrator.”
We don’t really say it like that (frankly, there should be a rule against anyone saying it like that), but we do essentially recommend that our clients embed their initial skepticism in questions for expert witnesses who explain how something works or in direct examination questions for the witness who is explaining why something was done the way it was done. The off-hand, seemingly casual, inclusion of initial skepticism bypasses juror resistance to persuasion and takes them on our client’s journey of discovery. Just like the author said above.
Here is what the researcher did. She had research participants in two different experiments (a total of 215 participants) read a description of either a “precognitive dream” in which the narrator predicted and ultimately prevented a car accident, or of a telepathic experience in which the narrator thought of “an old friend, Sally” and then half an hour later, learned Sally had been hospitalized. The research participants were placed into three different conditions as they read the descriptions:
The narrator claimed to be skeptical of the paranormal prior to describing the event.
The narrator said s/he really had no interest at all in the paranormal prior to describing the event.
Or, the narrator admitted to being a fervent prior believer.
After reading the descriptions of the events from the skeptical narrator, the disinterested narrator, or the avid believer narrator, the research participants were asked whether they saw the event described as being truly paranormal, just a coincidence, or the product of a gullible narrator.
In both experiments, having a skeptical narrator increased the likelihood participants would see the event as possibly being paranormal. The researcher clarifies that the disinterested narrator did not result in an increase in those seeing the events as paranormal.
“The narrator must establish a prior position contrary to the one they are now assumed to hold in order to influence the audience.”
However, when participants were warned about the “avowal of prior skepticism” technique in Experiment 2, the pattern was reversed–that is, a skeptical narrator was less likely to result in participants seeing an event as paranormal.
When the narrator held a position of prior belief, s/he was seen as more gullible and easily convinced only when female and not male! The researcher thinks it likely is due to men being seen as relatively rational and skeptical when it comes to the paranormal and telepathy while women are not seen that way. We have at least 33 thoughts on this finding.
The author concludes the paper with this straightforward paragraph:
“In conclusion, the present research supports the proposition that an avowal of prior scepticism serves to increase the plausibility of a paranormal causal explanation for an anomalous event as long as the audience are not pre-warned. An avowal of prior belief serves to increase the perceived gullibility of a female, but not a male, narrator, suggesting a bias towards more readily perceiving a woman than a man as gullible.”
From a litigation advocacy perspective, when you have a pretty unbelievable story to tell, embedding skepticism into your narrative can be a powerfully persuasive tool. And if your opponent employs this strategy, you may want to educate jurors on the “avowal of prior skepticism” strategy to “undo” their efforts at persuasion.
Stone, A. (2013). An Avowal of Prior Scepticism Enhances the Credibility of an Account of a Paranormal Event Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33 (3), 260-281 DOI: 10.1177/0261927X13512115