Literature DB >> 26460001

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder.

Ian M Handley1, Elizabeth R Brown2, Corinne A Moss-Racusin3, Jessi L Smith4.   

Abstract

Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diversity; gender bias; science education; science workforce; sexism

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26460001      PMCID: PMC4629390          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  25 in total

Review 1.  The case for motivated reasoning.

Authors:  Z Kunda
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Interpreting evidence: why values can matter as much as science.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Kristen Intemann
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.416

3.  Laboratory life: Scientists of the world speak up for equality.

Authors:  Lihadh Al-Gazali; Virginia Valian; Ben Barres; Eva Y Andrei; Ling-An Wu; Jo Handelsman; Corinne Moss-Racusin; Liisa Husu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Processing of persuasive in-group messages.

Authors:  D M Mackie; L T Worth; A G Asuncion
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1990-05

5.  Social science. Scientific diversity interventions.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; Jojanneke van der Toorn; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  How stereotypes impair women's careers in science.

Authors:  Ernesto Reuben; Paola Sapienza; Luigi Zingales
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons.

Authors:  J Kasof
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 8.  Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.

Authors:  A G Greenwald; M R Banaji
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Sociology. Weaving a richer tapestry in biomedical science.

Authors:  Lawrence A Tabak; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia.

Authors:  J Schroeder; H L Dugdale; R Radersma; M Hinsch; D M Buehler; J Saul; L Porter; A Liker; I De Cauwer; P J Johnson; A W Santure; A S Griffin; E Bolund; L Ross; T J Webb; P G D Feulner; I Winney; M Szulkin; J Komdeur; M A Versteegh; C K Hemelrijk; E I Svensson; H Edwards; M Karlsson; S A West; E L B Barrett; D S Richardson; V van den Brink; J H Wimpenny; S A Ellwood; M Rees; K D Matson; A Charmantier; N Dos Remedios; N A Schneider; C Teplitsky; W F Laurance; R K Butlin; N P C Horrocks
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 2.411

View more
  36 in total

1.  Reply to Albers: Acceptance of empirical evidence for gender disparities in Dutch research funding.

Authors:  Romy van der Lee; Naomi Ellemers
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions.

Authors:  Tessa E S Charlesworth; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  There is no magic in speaker policies: creating gender equality at brain stimulation conferences : Editorial II to the supplement from the 2nd European Conference on brain stimulation in psychiatry.

Authors:  Anna-Katharine Brem; Soili M Lehto; Daniel Keeser; Frank Padberg
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 5.270

Review 4.  Atrial fibrillation in women: treatment.

Authors:  Darae Ko; Faisal Rahman; Maria A P Martins; Elaine M Hylek; Patrick T Ellinor; Renate B Schnabel; Emelia J Benjamin; Ingrid E Christophersen
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 32.419

5.  Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

Authors:  Aviva Philipp-Muller; Spike W S Lee; Richard E Petty
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  Assessing perceived effectiveness of career development efforts led by the women in American Medical Informatics Association Initiative.

Authors:  Duo Helen Wei; Polina V Kukhareva; Donghua Tao; Margarita Sordo; Deepti Pandita; Prerna Dua; Imon Banerjee; Joanna Abraham
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 7.942

7.  Women in neurointervention, a gender gap? Results of a prospective online survey.

Authors:  Sarah Power; Alessandra Biondi; Isil Saatci; Kathleen Bennett; Jeyaledchumy Mahadevan; Anne Christine Januel; Sirintara Pongpech Singhara Na Ayudhaya; Ronit Agid
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 1.764

8.  The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM.

Authors:  Erin A Cech
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 14.957

9.  Does your child's weight influence how you judge yourself as a parent? A cross-sectional study to define and examine parental overvaluation of weight/shape.

Authors:  Janet A Lydecker; Carlos M Grilo
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.

Authors:  Sohad Murrar; Paula A Johnson; You-Geon Lee; Molly Carnes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 3.017

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.