Sex Bias in Clinical Judgment: Later Empirical Returns

Abstract

This paper updates an earlier review of research on sex bias in psychological evaluation and psychotherapy. The experimental analogue continues to dominate the literature and to return a resoundingly negative verdict. This evidence, however, is often discounted on the grounds of the analogue's transparency and clinical impoverishment. Naturalistic data have likewise failed to support claims of widespread sex bias, but have nonetheless whetted suspicions that gender and sex role attributes affect circumscribed clinical decisions. These correlational field studies are often dismissed, however, on the basis of their inadequate control for potential confounds. This empirical deadlock is discussed within the context of the sexual politics of research and of methodological preference in particular. The interpretive gerrymandering that has plagued this literature is linked to an unwillingness to be open about the sex role heritage of research strategies themselves and the deep personal and political investments at stake.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.