the influence of person traits on lawyer selection among british adults
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 26 November 2014, At: 05:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of GeneralPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20
The Influence of Person Traitson Lawyer Selection AmongBritish AdultsAdrian Furnham a , Alastair McClelland a & VirenSwami ba University College Londonb University of WestminsterPublished online: 20 Sep 2012.
To cite this article: Adrian Furnham , Alastair McClelland & Viren Swami (2012) TheInfluence of Person Traits on Lawyer Selection Among British Adults, The Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 139:4, 217-229, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.2012.693974
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.693974
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
The Journal of General Psychology, 2012, 139(4), 217–229Copyright C© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
The Influence of Person Traits on LawyerSelection Among British Adults
ADRIAN FURNHAMALASTAIR MCCLELLAND
University College London
VIREN SWAMIUniversity of Westminster
ABSTRACT. The present study examined selection criteria for lawyers among Britishadults, which begins to overturn a dearth of studies examining this issue among legalprofessions. A total of 122 participants were asked to rate eight lawyers dichotomizedalong lawyer origin (Britain versus South Asia), gender (women versus men), and age(younger versus older). A mixed-design analysis of variance showed that there was a maineffect of lawyer origin, with British lawyers preferred over the South Asian counterparts.There were also a number of significant interactions between lawyer variables, as well asparticipant gender and age. The effect sizes of these interactions were generally smaller(ηp
2 = .07−.24) than the main effect lawyer origin (ηp2 = .54). Limitations and practical
implications are discussed in conclusion.
Keywords: endogamy, lawyers, legal services, selection criteria
IN THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES havebecome much more discerning in their choice of legal representation, particularlywith regard to the price and quality of service that they expect from firms thatthey engage (Meyers, 2010). Surprisingly, however, empirical research examiningthe factors that influence the selection of lawyers is limited, with much greaterscholarly effort focused on client satisfaction and service evaluation (e.g., Pieters,Koelemeijer, & Roest, 1995) and the long-term retention of legal representation(e.g., Hilton & Migdal, 2005; Palihawadana & Barnes, 2004). This oversight isimportant because a focus on lawyer selection may have important implications
Address correspondence to Dr. Viren Swami, Department of Psychology, Universityof Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK; [email protected](e-mail).
217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
218 The Journal of General Psychology
for the establishment and management of positive practitioner-client relationships(Kotler, 1994; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990).
The studies that have examined client selection of lawyers have typicallyfocused on the views of corporate clients, rather than individual consumers. Thus,these studies have emphasized the importance of good personal relationshipsbetween corporate clients and lawyers (Day & Barksdale, 1992) and the approval oflegal firms by known others (Clark, 1993; File, Cermack, & Prince, 1994; Galanter& Palay, 1991; Gulati, 1995; Strub & Priest, 1976). However, the generalizabilityof these findings to private clients is suspect. For example, one study of a Britishregional law firm indicated that individual clients were much less aware of thelegal market and the specialities of particular firms than corporate clients (Ellis& Watterson, 2001). It is, therefore, possible that individual consumers mightemphasize a different set of selection criteria for lawyers than do corporate clients(Rosenberg, 2003).
A number of studies have examined choice criteria used by private clientswhen selecting a lawyer (e.g., Kuehl & Ford, 1977). These studies have typicallyreported that private consumers emphasize lawyer experience (Hughes & Kasulis,1985), competence (Crane, 1989), and reputation (Meyers, 2005, 2010). By con-trast, consumers tend to place less emphasis on the price of services when selectinga lawyer (Meyers, 2005; Seth & Martin, 1995), although it has also been suggestedthat clients may measure the quality of legal services based on fees that lawyerscharge (Meyers, 2010). Nevertheless, the available evidence also suggests that cri-teria such as lawyer experience and competence are not valued a great deal morethan competing factors, such as convenient office hours and location (Hughes &Kasulis, 1985) and the physical appearance of the lawyer’s office (Crane, 1989).
In addition, two other limitations constrain the conclusions that can be drawnfrom the extant literature. First, the vast majority of studies have been conductedin the United States and the extent to which their results can be applied to othernational contexts is unknown. For example, the marketing of legal services toconsumers is much more fully developed in the United States than it is in Britainand Europe (Morgan, 1991; O’Malley & Harris, 1999). Moreover, to the extentthat information about service quality and reputation is less available in the Britishcontext, it may lead consumers to focus on other factors when selecting a lawyer.Specifically, the information deficiency that faces the British consumer may focustheir selection criteria on primary factors associated with the lawyer, such as theirdemographics.
A second limitation of the extant literature is the implicit assumption thatselecting a lawyer is no different to selecting other professionals (e.g., Meyers,2010). Certainly, there exists a much healthier body of research examining con-sumer choices for other professional, including general practitioners (e.g., Furn-ham, Petrides, & Temple, 2006), dentists (e.g., Furnham & Swami, 2009; Swami,McClelland, Bedi, & Furnham, 2011), and psychological counsellors (e.g., Furn-ham & Swami, 2008). Unlike these professions, however, it has been argued that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 219
selecting a lawyer is made more difficult by the fact that legal services are rel-atively intangible (Clark, 1993) and that their subject matter is often complex,ambiguous, or unpredictable (Hadfield, 2000).
Furthermore, consumers typically believe that engaging legal representationinvolves a high degree of potential risk (Patterson, 1993), particularly if they aredisadvantaged because of power asymmetries (Gluckler & Armbruster, 2003). Insuch a scenario, it is likely that consumer selection criteria for lawyers will befocused on tangible factors, such as lawyer demographics. The present study, then,was conceived as a contribution to the extant literature on consumers’ selectioncriteria for lawyers. Specifically, we examined the possible effects of lawyer age,nationality, and gender on consumer preferences of British adults. These factorswere selected because they have been extensively examined in the literature onconsumer choice for medical practitioners, but remain under-researched in relationto legal representation.
Method
Participants
One hundred and twenty two individuals recruited from among the generalpublic in Britain participated in this study. Complete data (lawyer ratings, partici-pant gender, and participant age) were available for 114 participants (64 men, 50women; age M = 44.43, SD = 11.55). Of the 73.7% who reported their ethnicity,89.3% classified themselves as White, which is consistent with the proportionof respondents who reported as being of White descent in the last British census.With respect to educational qualifications, 20.9% had completed secondary/furthereducation and 79.1% had a higher education qualification (47.8% undergraduatedegree; 31.3% postgraduate degree). Finally, in terms of marital status, 82.2% ofparticipants were co-habiting or married, 13.3% were single, 3.3% were divorced,and the remainder were of some other status.
Materials
Lawyer SelectionIn order to examine lawyer selection, we adapted a measure first used by
Furnham and Swami (2009) to examine preferences of dentists. Specifically, par-ticipants were asked to imagine that they had to appear in court charged with aminor criminal offence. They were further informed that they could retain theservices of one of eight lawyers that were available for their personal budget con-straints and that each of the lawyers were fully conversant with the requirementsof the British criminal justice system. Participants were then presented with a listof eight lawyers that varied dichotomously on the variables of gender (womenversus men), origin (British versus South Asian), and age (young versus old).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
220 The Journal of General Psychology
Examples of the items that were used include “William Daniels, a 36-year-oldman who originally trained in Bristol” and “Sushama Rahman, a 56-year-oldwoman who originally trained in New Delhi” (the full list of items is availablefrom the corresponding author). Participants were asked to rate each lawyer on10-point Likert-type scales (one for each lawyer), with higher ratings reflectinga greater preference to retain a lawyer (1 = Very low preference, 10 = Very highpreference). The order of presentation of the eight targets was counterbalanced foreach participant. Measures such as this have been widely used to examine prefer-ences for different practitioner types (Furnham & Swami, 2008, 2009; Furnhamet al., 2006; Swami et al., 2011).
DemographicsParticipants provided their demographic details consisting sex, age, ethnicity,
highest educational qualification, and marital status.
Procedure
Once ethical approval for this study was obtained from the relevant univer-sity ethics committee, the first author directly recruited participants from pub-lic conferences. Specifically, members of the general public who attended sev-eral conferences on popular psychology were invited to take part in the study.The conferences were specifically aimed at the general public and included talksby psychologists on issues of relevance to a wide audience. Once participation hadbeen agreed, participants provided informed consent and completed an anonymouspaper-and-pencil survey that took approximately ten minutes to complete. All par-ticipants took part on a voluntary basis and were not remunerated for participation.Once completed, participants returned their questionnaires to the experimenter ina sealed envelope. All participants were verbally debriefed.
Results
In order to examine participants’ preferences for lawyers, we conducted amixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA), in which participant gender (womenversus men), and age (younger versus older using a median split) were enteredas between-participant factors, and the lawyer’s gender (women versus men),age (younger versus older), and origin (Britain versus South Asia) were enteredas within-participant factors. Results showed that there was no main effect ofparticipant gender (women M = 5.59; men M = 5.76), F < 1.0, but there wasa significant effect of participant age (younger M = 5.95; older M = 5.40), F(1,100) = 7.50, MSE = 64.23, p = .007, ηp
2 = .06. That is, younger participants gavehigher ratings than older participants. The interaction between participant genderand participant age was not significant, F < 1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 221
Origin of Lawyer
Britain Indian Subcontinent
Mea
n R
atin
g
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
Male LawyersFemale Lawyers
FIGURE 1. Graphical representation of the significant interaction between thegender and origin of the lawyer (error bars = 1 SE).
There was no main effect of lawyer gender (men M = 5.63; women M =5.73), F< 1, or age (younger M = 5.74; older M = 5.62), F < 1. There was,however, a significant main effect of lawyer origin (British M = 6.76; Asian M= 4.60), F(1, 110) = 129.21, MSE = 23.18, p < .001, ηp
2 = .54. Specifically,British lawyers were preferred over South Asian lawyers, with the effect size ofthis difference being large by conventional standards. Inspection of the ANOVAresults also showed that there was a significant interaction between the gender andthe origin of the lawyer, F(1, 110) = 14.83, MSE = 1.11, p < .001, ηp
2 = .12 (seeFigure 1). Simple effects analysis showed that for British lawyers, the differencebetween men (M = 6.85) and women (M = 6.67) was not significant, F(1, 110)= 2.08, MSE = 0.78, p = .152, ηp
2 = .02, whereas for lawyers trained in theIndian Subcontinent, women (M = 4.79) were preferred to men (M = 4.41), F(1,110) = 14.84, MSE = 0.52, p < .001, ηp
2 = .12. There was also a significantinteraction between lawyer origin and age, F(1, 110) = 8.55, MSE = 0.83, p =.004, ηp
2 = .07 (see Figure 2). For British lawyers, the mean preference ratingfor younger lawyers (M = 6.91) was higher than for older lawyers (M = 6.61),but this difference failed to reach significance F(1, 110) = 3.01, MSE = 1.65,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
222 The Journal of General Psychology
Origin of LawyerBritain Indian Subcontinent
Mea
n R
atin
g
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
Younger LawyersOlder Lawyers
FIGURE 2. Graphical representation of the significant interaction betweenlawyer origin and age (error bars = 1 SE).
p = .086, ηp2 = .03. Age did not influence preference for lawyers from South Asia
(older = 4.63; younger = 4.57), F < 1.There was also a significant cross-over interaction between lawyer age and
gender, F(1, 110) = 22.85, MSE = 1.02, p < .001, ηp2 = .17 (see Figure 3).
A simple effects analysis revealed that for older lawyers, men (M = 5.73) werepreferred over women (M = 5.50), F(1, 110) = 4.09, MSE = 0.67, p < .046, ηp
2
= .03, whereas for younger lawyers, women (M = 5.96) were preferred over men(M = 5.52), F(1, 110) = 17.00, MSE = 0.59, p < .001, ηp
2 = .13. Lawyer agealso interacted with participant gender, F(1, 110) = 6.58, MSE = 4.50, p = .012,ηp
2 = .06 (see Figure 4). Amongst male participants, there was no preference withrespect to the age of the lawyer (older: M = 5.89; younger: M = 5.64), F(1, 62) =1.97, MSE = 1.01, p = .166, ηp
2 = .03, but amongst female participants, youngerlawyers (M = 5.84) were favoured over older lawyers (M = 5.35), F(1, 48) =4.42, MSE = 1.28, p = .041, ηp
2 = .08.Finally, there was a significant three-way interaction between the age of the
participant, the age of the lawyer, and the background of the lawyer, F(1, 110)= 8.87, MSE = 0.83, p = .004, ηp
2 = .08 (see Figure 5). For older participants
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 223
Age of Lawyer
Younger Older
Mea
n R
atin
g
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
Male LawyersFemale Lawyers
FIGURE 3. Graphical representation of the significant interaction betweenlawyer age and gender (error bars = 1 SE).
(Figure 5: lower panel), there was no interaction between the age and the back-ground of the lawyer, F < 1, but amongst younger participants (Figure 5: upperpanel) a highly significant interaction was present, F(1, 59) = 19.00, MSE =0.87, p < .001, ηp
2 = .24. Simple effects analysis showed that for British-trainedlawyers, there was a strong preference for younger individuals (M = 7.25) overolder individuals (M = 6.57), F(1, 59) = 7.99, MSE = 1.74, p < .006, ηp
2 = .12,but there was no age preference (younger M = 4.97; older M = 5.03), for lawyerstrained in the Indian Subcontinent, F < 1.
Discussion
The results of this study showed, firstly, that our British participants hada preference for British over South Asian lawyers. This form of endogamy orethnic-concordance has been found in selection criteria for medical practitioners(e.g., Ahmad, Hansa, Rawlins, & Stewart, 2002; Bischel & Mallinckrodt, 2001;Kapphahn, Wilson, & Klein, 1999; Swami et al., 2011) and has been explained asa function of enhanced consumer-practitioner communication (Ahmad, Kernohan,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
224 The Journal of General Psychology
Participant Gender
Male Female
Mea
n R
atin
g
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
Younger Lawyers Older Lawyers
FIGURE 4. Graphical representation of the significant interaction betweenlawyer age and participant gender (error bars = 1 SE).
& Baker, 1989). In terms of lawyers specifically, it might also be the case thatethnic concordance promotes perceived equality between consumers and lawyersin the consultation process, as has been posited to explain physician selection(van Ryn & Burke, 2000). Indeed, previous research has indicated that consumer-lawyer ‘chemistry’ is an important factor influencing engagement of services (Day& Barksdale, 1992).
Nevertheless, it is important to note a limitation in the way our study opera-tionalized the origin of lawyers. While we informed participants as to the locationof training of the hypothetical lawyers, this possibly confounds the ethnicity ofthe lawyer with training location. This makes it difficult to examine the extentto which these effects are being driven by ethnic endogamy, on the one hand, orracial prejudice, bias against non-British legal degrees, bias against immigrants,or all of the above, on the other. In future work, it will be necessary to overcomethis confound by examining the differential effect of training (e.g., if, regardlessof ethnicity, all lawyers were trained in Britain) or country of origin (e.g., bymentioning that all lawyers were born in Britain, to minimise any inference ofimmigration).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 225
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
Younger Lawyers Older Lawyers
Origin of Lawyer
Britain Indian Subcontinent3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
Younger Participants
Older Participants
FIGURE 5. Graphical representation of the significant interaction betweenorigin of the lawyer, lawyer age and participant age (error bars = 1 SE).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
226 The Journal of General Psychology
In addition, it should also be noted that, in the present study, we foundsignificant interactions between lawyer origin and gender, lawyer origin and age,and lawyer age and gender. In the first instance, our results showed that, for Britishlawyers, there was no preference for men over women, whereas for lawyers trainedin South Asia women were preferred to males. It is possible that female lawyersare preferred when they are of South Asian origin because female professionals arejudged to have better personal and emotional skills than their male counterparts(Shah & Ogden, 2006). Thus our results do not appear to show the gender-concordance that is common in medical practitioner selection (e.g., Derose, Hayes,McCaffrey, & Baker, 2001; Furnham et al., 2006).
With respect to the origin by age interaction, there was an indication that, forBritish lawyers, older professionals were preferred over their younger counterparts(an effect absent for South Asian lawyers) although this difference did not reachstatistical significance. It has elsewhere been argued that this pattern of findingsmight indicate that age is acting as a proxy for practitioner experience (Furnham& Swami, 2009). That is, older lawyers may be perceived as having greaterexperience than younger lawyers. Interestingly, we also found that participantgender had an influence on preference for lawyers of different age groups; menshowed no preference with respect to the age of the lawyer but women preferredyounger lawyers. In addition, we also found a significant interaction betweenlawyer age and lawyer gender, with women being preferred over men in theyounger age group, and men being preferred over women in the older age group.Finally, we observed an interesting three-way interaction between participant agegroup, the age of the lawyer and the origin of the lawyer. Older participantspreferred British over South Asian trained lawyers, but showed no preferencewith respect to gender. However, although younger participants also showed apreference for British trained lawyers overall, they also clearly favoured youngerBritish lawyers over older British lawyers—implying an age-concordance effect.There was no gender preference amongst the South Asian lawyers.
Taken together, the above findings may have important implications for theselection of legal representation, service provision, and client satisfaction. Along-side increasing client sophistication and the exercise of choice (Morgan, 1991),improving the ‘fit’ between client and practitioner may be expected to result inmore positive interactions and service provision. Our results contribute to this bodyof work by suggesting that a match between lawyers and customers may be what issought by the latter. Although successful negotiation of initial service procurementcan be difficult, it seems likely—as has been reported among other professionalgroups (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2002)—that similarity along key demographics willfacilitate communication and interaction.
Having said that, a number of limitations of the present study limit the con-clusions that we can draw from our results. First, because we examined selec-tion preferences for hypothetical lawyers for a criminal case, it may be difficultto generalise our findings to other case types or to real-life situations. Indeed,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 227
real-life selection criteria may include a much wider range of variables than wehave examined in the present study. In addition to variables uncovered in previouswork (Crane, 1989; Hughes & Kasulis, 1985; Meyers, 2010), other neglected vari-ables include lawyer personalities, physical appearance, social skills, as well asstructural factors such as ease of access and contact (Mitchell, 1994; Spar, 1997),personal recommendations or referrals (Ellis & Watterson, 2001; File et al., 1994).
In a similar vein, we utilized a single hypothetical case (i.e., appearance incourt to deal with a minor criminal offence) and we do not currently have evidenceas to the generalizability of our findings in relation to other case types. For example,it is possible that a different set of results would be found if participants were askedto imagine selecting a lawyer for a different situation, such as being sued for sexualharassment or facing an immigration violation. Certainly, this is an aspect of ourdesign that would benefit from sustained, future research.
Other limitations of our study include the relatively small sample size and ourrecruitment method, both of which limit the generalizability of our findings to thewider British public. In addition to recruiting more representative samples, futurework would also do well to collect further participant data that may impact uponselection criteria, such as previous experience of using legal services. Finally, wehave also assumed that individuals can exercise choice when selecting lawyers,although this may not always be the case, as with legal aid in Britain or withlarge firms where lawyers exercise choice. These limitations notwithstanding, ourresults suggest that, to the extent that consumers are able to exercise choice, theymay take into account an individual’s perceived social group, age and gender whenselecting a lawyer. Further understanding of these issues may help to improve therelationships between clients and practitioners.
AUTHOR NOTES
Adrian Furnham is an organizational and applied psychologist, managementexpert and Professor of Psychology at University College London. In addition tohis academic roles, he is a consultant on organizational behavior and management,writer and broadcaster. Alastair McClelland is a Senior Lecturer in Psychologyat University College London, where he maintains research interests in humanmemory and psychological aspects of probability and statistics. Viren Swami isa Reader in Psychology at the University of Westminster, where he maintainsresearch interests in physical attraction, body image, and the psychology of con-spiracy theories.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, F., Hansa, G., Rawlins, J., & Stewart, D. E. (2002). Preferences for gender of fam-ily physician among Canadian-European descent and South-Asian immigrant women.Family Practice, 19, 146–153.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
228 The Journal of General Psychology
Ahmad, W. I. U., Kernohan, E. E. M., & Baker, M. R. (1989). Patients’ choice of generalpractitioner: Influence of patients’ fluency in English and the ethnicity and sex of thedoctor. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 39, 153–155.
Bichsel, R. J., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2001). Cultural commitment and the counseling prefer-ences and counselor perceptions of Native American women. The Counseling Psychol-ogist, 29, 858–881.
Clark, T. (1993). The market provision of management services, information asymmetries,and service quality—Some market solutions: An empirical example. British Journal ofManagement, 4, 235–251.
Crane, F. G. (1989). Choice criteria and cue usage in selecting lawyers. Journal of Profes-sional Services Marketing, 5, 113–121.
Day, E., & Barksdale, H. C. (1992). How firms select professional services. IndustrialMarketing Management, 21, 85–91.
Derose, K. P., Hays, R. D., McCaffrey, D. F., & Baker, D. W. (2001). Does physician genderaffect satisfaction of men and women visiting the emergency department? Journal ofGeneral Internal Medicine, 16, 218–226.
Ellis, N., & Watterson, C. (2001). Client perceptions of regional law firms and their impli-cations for marketing management. The Services Industries Journal, 21, 100–118.
Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of lawyers: The transformation of the biglaw firm. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
File, K. M., Cermak, D. S. P., & Prince, R. A. (1994). Word-of-mouth effects in professionalservice buyer behavior. The Service Industries Journal, 14, 301–314.
Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., & Temple, J. (2006). Patient preferences for medical doctors.British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 439–449.
Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2008) Patient preferences for psychological counsellors: Evi-dence of a similarity effect. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 21, 361–370.
Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2009). Patient preferences for dentists. Psychology, Health,and Medicine, 14, 143–149.
Gluckler, J. & Armbruster, T. (2003). Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: Themechanisms of trust and networked reputation. Organization Studies, 24, 269–297.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for con-tractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85–112.
Hadfield, G. K. (2000). The price of law: How the market for lawyers distorts the justicesystem. Michigan Law Review, 98, 953–998.
Hilton, T., & Migdal, S. (2005). Why clients need, rather than want, lawyers. InternationalJournal of the Legal Profession, 12, 145–163.
Hughes, M. A., & Kasulis, J. J. (1985). The production cue hypothesis and the marketingof legal services. In T. M. Bloch, G. Upah, & V. Zeithaml (Eds.), Services marketing ina changing environment (pp. 112–116). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Kapphahn, C. J., Wilson, K. M., & Klein, J. D. (1999). Adolescent girls’ and boys’ prefer-ences for provider gender and confidentiality in their health care. Journal of AdolescentHealth, 25, 131–142.
Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuehl, P. G., & Ford, G. T. (1977). The promotion of medical and legal services: Anexperimental study. In A. G. Greenberg, & D. N. Bellenger, (Eds.), (Contemporarymarketing thought (pp. 39–44). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Meyers, M. S. (2005). The importance of the Internet in the selection of service providers.Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, 10, 29–32.
Meyers, M. S. (2010). Meeting the challenge of marketing intangibles. Proceedings of theAcademy of Marketing Studies, 15, 44–47.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Furnham et al. 229
Mitchell, V. W. (1994). Problems and risks in the purchasing of consultancy services. TheService Industries Journal, 14, 315–339.
Morgan, N. A. (1991). Professional services marketing. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.O’Malley, L., & Harris, L. C. (1999). The dynamics of the legal market: An interaction
perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 874–895.Palihawadana, D., & Barnes, B. R. (2004). Client loyalty and defection in the legal industry.
The Service Industries Journal, 24, 101–114.Patterson, P. G. (1993) Expectations and product performance as determinants of satisfac-
tion for a high involvement purchase. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 449–465.Pieters, R., Koelemeijer, K., & Roest, H. (1995). Assimilation processes in service satis-
faction formation. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6, 17–33.Reichheld, F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to service. Harvard
Business Review, 68, 105–111.Rosenberg, J. (2003). Small business: Finding the right lawyer for your business. Capital-
Gazette Communications, 4, 6–7.Seth, E., & Martin, M. (1995). The selection and retention of law firms: A study of
the perceptions of corporate officers. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 33,117–123.
Shah, R., & Ogden, J. (2006). “What’s in a face?” The role doctor ethnicity, age, and genderin the formation of patients’ judgements: An experimental study. Patient Education andCounseling, 60, 136–141.
Spar, D. (1997). Lawyers abroad: The internationalization of legal practice. CaliforniaManagement Review, 39, 9–28.
Strub, P. J., & Priest, T. B. (1976) Two patterns of establishing trust: The marijuana user.Sociological Focus, 9, 399–411.
Swami, V., McClelland, A., Bedi, R., & Furnham, A. (2011) The influence of practitionernationality, experience and sex in shaping patient preferences for dentists. InternationalDental Journal, 61, 193–198.
van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000). The effect of patient race and socioeconomic status onphysicians’ perceptions of patients. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 813–828.
Original manuscript received January 5, 2012Final version accepted May 11, 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 05:
06 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014