Gender bias in clinical judgment: An assessment of the analogue method's transparency and social desirability

Abstract

The main purpose of this research was to determine whether clinicians discern the intent of an analogue study of gender bias in clinical judgment and, if so, whether they respond in a socially desirable manner. A total of 147 psychologists responded to a national mail survey in which they were instructed to make clinical ratings of a case summary describing either a female or male client. In one condition (the Social Desirability condition), clinicians were informed of the study's intent and instructed to respond in a socially desirable fashion. In another condition (the No Social Desirability condition), the study's intent was not revealed and clinicians were asked to guess the study's hypothesis following their ratings. Results indicate that only 10 of 100 clinicians reported having deduced the purpose of the study. The small number of guessers prohibited examination of whether guessing the intent leads to socially desirable responses. Results provide no evidence that either therapist or client gender influenced clinical judgment. Implications for evaluating experimental findings which fail to support gender bias in clinical judgment are discussed.