Examining the impact of sexism on evaluations of social scientific evidence in discrimination litigation.

Abstract

The present 2 studies involved undergraduate participants and investigated whether various types of sexism and other correlated predictors, such as political conservatism and scientific discounting, can predict people's evaluations of social science research on sex stereotypes, sexism, and sex discrimination. In Study 1, participants high in hostile sexism, scientific discounting, and/or political conservatism were more critical of scientific studies that provided evidence for sexism than identical studies showing null results. Study 2 showed that participants high in modern sexism, hostile sexism, and political conservatism evaluated social scientific studies more negatively; in addition, assessments of social scientific evidence quality mediated the effect of modern sexism on admissibility ratings (b = -0.15, z = -4.16, p = .00). Overall, these results suggest that sexist beliefs can bias one's judgments of social scientific evidence. Future research should explore whether the same psychological processes operate for judges and jurors as they evaluate the admissibility of evidence and examine ways to attenuate the effect of sexism on evaluations.