Sex-related patient and therapist effects on clinical judgment

The purpose of this investigation was to submit the claim of sex-related bias in clinical judgment to more thorough empirical testing than had been the case in previous research. Patient sex and stereotypic sex-role were factorially varied in a clinical protocol that was sent with related materials to 640 sex-stratified, randomly selected Members and Fellows of APA Division 29 (Psychotherapy). Approximately 30% (N=182) of those contacted returned usable data, including information about their own sex-role traditionalism and evaluation of the hypothetical patients' psychological well-being. Results confirmed the effectiveness of the stereotypic sex-role manipulation. However, no consistent effects were found for any of the four variables of interest considered in isolation or in combination, thereby refuting allegations of covert sex-related discrimination perpetrated under the aegis of psychological appraisal. Favorableness of clinical impressions was not mediated by therapists' self-reported attitudes toward the patients. The study's generally unexpected outcome was tentatively attributed to enhanced professional sensitization to the sociocultural barriers to full psychological functioning in women.This report is based on a master's thesis written by the first author under the sponsorship of the second and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree at Vanderbilt University, 1974. The research was supported in part by the Vanderbilt University Research Council. The contributions of Stephen Amira and Joseph M. Schwartz are gratefully acknowledged.