Data came from an experimental study which involved voir dire conducted by judges and attorneys using either personal or formal interpersonal styles. Eight voir dires were conducted in the moot courtroom of a major southern law school. Participants were ll6 jury-eligible community residents. A law professor and another white male alternately assumed the roles of judge and attorney. The subjects changed their answers almost twice as often when questioned by a judge as when interviewed by an attorney. Judges were unable to enhance their effectiveness by changing their interpersonal behavior. Levels of public self-awareness did not predict the consistency of jurors' self-reports. The presence of the judge apparently pressures potential jurors toward conformity to a set of perceived judicial standards; this pressure is evidently minimized during an attorney voir dire. Females changed their attitude reports almost twice as often as males, a surprising finding. As a function of sex role socialization, they may be more influenced than males to conform to perceived judicial standards. A literature review, data tables, appendixes presenting forms and scripts used in the research, and a list of 156 references are supplied. (Author summary modified)