Removing the Tinted Spectacles: Accurate Client Emotionality Assessment Despite Therapists' Gender Stereotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether psychotherapists' gender stereotypes bias their assessments of client emotionality. Psychotherapist participants (n = 248) listened to one of four randomly assigned audio recordings of a contrived therapy session with a client having either a male voice, a female voice, the original male voice electronically altered to sound like a female, or the original female voice altered to sound like a male. Participants assessed the client using the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS), an observer rating of client emotionality, and completed the Beliefs About Men's Emotions (BAME) scale, a measure of gender stereotype endorsement, with regard to their own stereotypes. It was hypothesized that therapists in both female voice conditions would rate the client as more emotional (less alexithymic) than would therapists in the corresponding male voice conditions. Further, therapists' gender stereotype endorsement was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between client gender and therapists' ratings of clients' emotionality. Therapists strongly endorsed gender stereotypes, but these stereotypes did not bias their assessments of client emotionality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".