Commentary: Do forensic psychiatrists' practice patterns differ based on their gender?

Does gender affect the practice pattern of forensic psychiatrists? Though the exact nature of practice differences between male and female forensic psychiatrists is difficult to identify and even more difficult to quantify, Price et al. make a solid start toward answering the question. They define basic parameters of forensic psychiatric practice and compare these parameters between men and women. Most prominent in the findings of Price et al. is that the women surveyed were almost twice as likely to believe that gender is a factor in the selection of a forensic psychiatric expert than were the men (80% versus 41%). The female psychiatrists’ belief that gender affects the legal process, at least in the selection of an expert witness, is consistent with the literature review by Price et al. of professional women within the court system. The literature on gender fairness within court systems documents that female lawyers and judges more frequently report gender bias as being directed toward women than toward their male colleagues. Though the process of choosing a female psychiatrist instead of a male is not a negative bias, it indicates a genderbased difference in practice more frequently reported by female than male forensic psychiatrists. Regarding this issue, the female psychiatrists surveyed by Price et al. acknowledged both having experienced selection bias based on gender and having the belief that gender is a factor in the selection of a forensic expert. The literature review presented by Price et al. on professional women within the court system documents that women report experiencing genderbiased treatment and perceive a difference in how they are treated as professionals. The literature concerning expert witnesses and gender is mixed with regard to the influence of gender on a jury’s perception of an expert witness’s credibility. Echoing the description of Price et al. of studies that raise concerns about whether female experts are viewed as credible are the results of the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for Gender Fairness in the Courts. This latter study was conducted from 1986 to 1987 with extensive questionnaires sent to attorneys, judges, and court administrative personnel and through public hearings, with response rates at 83.5 percent and 93 percent for all registered Minnesota attorneys and judges, respectively. In this study, results comparable with those of Price et al. showed that most of the female attorneys surveyed had encountered gender-based differential treatment. Some examples given by female attorneys included derogatory comments that were considered gender based, different forms of address compared with male attorneys, inquiries about professional identity (i.e., “Are you an attorney?”), and inappropriate comments about their dress and physical characteristics including comments about their breasts. Female judges reported subtle experiences that left them with the perception of not being taken seriously by their male judicial colleagues. The Minnesota Task Force report included multiple accounts of gender bias against female judges and attorneys, as witnessed and reported by men. More germane to the review Dr. Hackett is Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Address correspondence to: Maureen Hackett, MD, Medical Arts Bldg., Suite 1850, 825 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. E-mail: hackett@netinst. com