Advertisement

Hostile Sexist Male Patients and Female Doctors: A Challenging Encounter

  • Christina Klöckner Cronauer
  • Marianne Schmid Mast
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Patient characteristics and attitudes can affect how patients react to the physician’s communication style, and this reaction can then influence consultation outcomes.

Objective

The goal of the present study was to investigate whether the attitude of a sexist male patient affects how he perceives a female physician’s nonverbal communication and whether this then results in expecting less positive consultation outcomes.

Study design and setting

Participants were analog patients who viewed four videotaped male and four videotaped female physicians in a consultation with one of their patients. Physician videos were preselected to represent a range of high and low patient-centered physician nonverbal behavior. Participants filled in questionnaires to assess how patient-centered they perceived the female and male physicians’ nonverbal communication to be, and participants indicated how positive they expected the consultation outcomes to be. Moreover, we assessed the participants’ sexist attitudes with a questionnaire measuring hostile and benevolent sexism.

Participants

Students (N = 60) from a French-speaking university in Switzerland were recruited on campus.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome measures were the extent to which analog patients expect the consultation outcomes to be positive (high satisfaction, increased trust in the physician, intention to adhere to treatment recommendations, and perceived physician competence) and the extent to which analog patients perceive physicians as patient-centered (judged from the physicians’ nonverbal cues).

Results

Male analog patients’ hostile sexism was negatively related to perceiving the physicians as patient-centered, and male analog patients’ hostile sexism was also negatively related to expected positive consultation outcomes. For male patients viewing female physicians, mediation analysis revealed that perceived physician patient-centeredness mediated the negative relationship between hostile sexism and expected positive consultation outcomes.

Conclusion

Male hostile sexist patients perceive a female physician’s nonverbal communication as less patient-centered and this negatively affects their expectation of positive outcomes from the consultation.

Keywords

Sexist Attitude Nonverbal Behavior Benevolent Sexism Female Physician Hostile Sexism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments and funding

The authors thank Gaëtan Cousin for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. The research findings have been presented at the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare 2010 in Verona. This research has been supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (PP0001-106528/1) to the second author.

Conflicts of interest and guarantor statement

We, Christina Klöckner Cronauer and Marianne Schmid Mast, certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Both authors have sufficiently participated in the planning of this study, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the drafting and reviewing process of this article, and therefore are equal guarantors for the overall content.

Supplementary material

40271_2013_25_MOESM1_ESM.docx (110 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 111 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15(1):25–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roter DL, Frankel RM, Hall JA, Sluyter D. The expression of emotion through nonverbal behavior in medical visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152:1423–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Roter DL. Disentangling physician gender and communication style effects on patient satisfaction and behavior in a virtual medical visit. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;3:1–28.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart MA, Brown J, Donner A, McWhinney I, Oates J, Weston W, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on patient outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:796–804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bensing JM, Kerssens JJ, van der Pasch M. Patient directed gaze as a tool for discovering and handling psychosocial problems in general practice. J Nonverbal Behav. 1995;19(4):223–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epstein RM. The science of patient-centered care. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:805–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bensing JM. Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:1301–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiMatteo MR, Hays RD, Prince LM. Relationship of physicians’ nonverbal communication skills and standardized patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;18:170–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aruguete MS, Roberts CA. Gender, affiliation, and control in physician–patient encounters. Sex Roles. 2000;42:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson JD. Nonverbal communication and physician–patient interaction. In: Manusov V, Patterson ML, editors. The sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006. p. 437–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med. 1998;24:81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):531–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Intern Med. 1989;4:23–30.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braman AC, Gomez RG. Patient personality predicts preferences for relationships with doctors. Pers Individ Differ. 2004;37:815–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cousin G, Schmid Mast M. Agreeable patient meets affiliative physician: how physician behavior affects patient outcomes depends on patient personality. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(3):399–404. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall JA, Roter DL. Do patients talk differently to male and female physicians? A meta-analytic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:217–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication. JAMA. 2002;288:756–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandhu H, Adams A, Singleton L, Clark-Carter D, Kidd J. The impact of gender dyads on doctor–patient communication: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:348–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hall JA, Irish JT, Roter DL, Ehrlich CM, Miller LH. Gender in medical encounters: an analysis of physician and patient communication in a primary care setting. Health Psychol. 1994;13:384–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cousin G, Schmid Mast M, Jaunin-Stalder N. When physician expressed uncertainty leads to patient dissatisfaction: a gender study. Med Educ. 2013;47(9):923-31.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roter DL, Hall JA. Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: improving communication in medical visits. Westport: Auburn House/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc; 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blanch DC, Hall JA, Roter DL, Frankel RM. Medical student gender and issues of confidence. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;72(3):374–81. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blanch-Hartigan DC, Hall JA, Roter DL, Frankel RM. Gender bias in patients’ perceptions of patient-centered behaviors. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(3):315–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmid Mast M. On the importance of nonverbal communication in the physician–patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:315–8.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ambady N, Koo J, Rosenthal R, Winograd CH. Physical therapists’ nonverbal communication predicts geriatric patients’ health outcomes. Psychol Aging. 2002;17:443–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ambady N, LaPlante D, Nguyen T, Rosenthal R, Chaumeton N, Levinson W. Surgeons’ tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. Surgery. 2002;132:5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hall JA, Harrigan JA, Rosenthal R. Nonverbal behavior in clinician–patient interaction. Appl Prev Psychol. 1995;4:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Foss C, Sundby J. The construction of the gendered patient: hospital staff’s attitudes to female and male patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49(1):45–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Glick P, Fiske ST. Hostile and benevolent sexism. Psychol Women Q. 1997;21(1):119–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blanch-Hartigan D, Hall JA, Krupat E, Irish JT. Can naive viewers put themselves in the patients’ shoes? Reliability and validity of the analogue patient methodology. Med Care. 2013;51(3):e16–21. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822945cc.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schmid Mast M, Kindlimann A, Langewitz W. Recipient’s perspective on breaking bad news: how you put it really make a difference. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;58:244–51.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmid Mast M, Hall JA, Klöckner C, Choi E. Physician gender affects how physician nonverbal behavior is related to patient satisfaction. Med Care. 2008;46:1212–8.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krupat E, Frankel RM, Stein T, Irish JT. The four habits coding scheme: validation of an instrument to assess clinicians’ communication behavior. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62:38–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roter DL, Hall JA, Katz NR. Relations between physicians’ behaviors and analogue patients’ satisfaction, recall, and impressions. Med Care. 1987;25:437–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shapiro DE, Boggs SR, Melamed BG, Graham-Pole J. The effect of varied physician affect on recall, anxiety, and perceptions in women at risk for breast cancer: a simulated study. Health Psychol. 1992;11:61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fogarty LA, Curbow BA, Wingard JR, McDonnell K, Somerfield MR. Can 40 seconds of compassion reduce patient anxiety? J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:371–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centered consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:51–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meng XL, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychol Bull. 1992;111:172–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(3):491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Napier J, Thorisdottir H, Jost J. The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being. Sex Roles. 2010;62(7):405–19. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jackson JL, Kroenke K. Difficult patient encounters in the ambulatory clinic: clinical predictors and outcomes. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(10):1069–75. doi: 10-1001/pubs.ArchInternMed. ISSN-0003-9926-159-10-ioi80572.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Delgado A, Lopez-Fernandez LA, Luna Jde D, Saletti-Cuesta L, Gil N, Jimenez M. The role of expectations in preferences of patients for a female or male general practitioner. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(1):49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.028.
  46. 46.
    Richeson JA, Shelton JN. Brief report: thin slices of racial bias. J Nonverbal Behav. 2005;29:75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rosenthal GE, Sahnnon SE. The use of patient perceptions in the evaluation of health-care delivery systems. Med Care. 1997;35(11):NS58–68.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    van Vliet LM, van der Wall E, Albada A, Spreeuwenberg PM, Verheul W, Bensing JM. The validity of using analogue patients in practitioner–patient communication research: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1528–43. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Klöckner Cronauer
    • 1
  • Marianne Schmid Mast
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Work and Organizational PsychologyUniversity of NeuchatelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations