ArticlePloS one2022
In the eye of the beholder: Decision-making of lawyers in cases of sexual harassment.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Israelis' Perceptions of Offense Severity and Blame in Non-Consensual Dissemination of Intimate Images: The Role of Sex and Sexual Orientation.Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
- Investigating the role of psychopathic personality traits, gender and ethnicity in rape myth acceptance.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2025Article
- Examining Whether Risk Factors Influence Student Perceptions of Campus Sexual Violence.Sexual offending (Trier, Germany) · 2024Article
- Exposure to continuous political violence: rational and experiential thinking styles, coping styles and post traumatic stress symptoms.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Prevalence and correlates of sexual harassment in professional service firms.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Sex Work and Sexual Victimization: A Comparative Study of Students' and Police Officers' Perceptions of Sex-Working Rape Victims.Behavioral sciences & the lawArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of deliberative vs. intuitive thinking styles on forensic judgments of legal professionals. Two hypotheses were tested: (a) that low deliberative thinking would be related to judgmental biases (b) that lawyers would report a greater tendency and preference toward deliberative thinking in comparison to students and make more rational judgments.
methodNinety-one lawyers and 120 undergraduate students, who served as controls, were asked to read a criminal case depicting sexual harassment (SH) and judge victim and offender blame, whether the case constitutes SH, and the damage for the victim.
resultsDeliberative thinking of lawyers was higher than students, and higher than their intuitive thinking style, supporting the more rational blame attributions of the former. In addition, higher deliberative thinking was related to a stronger perception of the event as SH. Nevertheless, all the participants were more inclined to perceive the case as SH when the victim was a woman instead of a man.
conclusionsThe results suggest that gender stereotypes and bias may persist despite high deliberative thinking and may even be manifested through deliberative thinking processes. Awareness of legal professionals of these biases as well as the development of more objective tools which will help make the judging process less subjective-will ensure more accurate assessment of victims, offenders, and cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.