A Re-evaluation of Gender Bias in Receptiveness to Scientific Evidence of Gender Bias

Overview

Journal R Soc Open Sci

Specialty Science

Date 2024 Sep 5

PMID 39233717

Authors

David R Shanks

Hollie A Coles

Nadia Yeo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Gender bias has been documented in many aspects of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) careers, yet efforts to identify the underlying causes have been inconclusive. To what extent do cognitive biases, including unequal receptiveness in women and men to evidence of gender bias, contribute to gender bias in STEM? We investigated receptiveness in a STEM context among members of the general public, by undertaking a high-powered (total = 1171) replication, including three experiments (2 pre-registered) of the prominent study by Handley . [22]. It was hypothesized that men would evaluate a research summary reporting evidence of gender bias less favourably than women but that there would be no difference between men and women's evaluations of research summaries unrelated to gender bias. The results revealed no effect of the assessor's gender on receptiveness to scientific evidence of gender bias. The different results compared to those of Handley . [22] suggest either that the gender bias they detected has diminished in the past decade or that their findings are a false positive. The present research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some influential studies on cognitive 'markers' of gender bias warrant re-examination.

References

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

Kuhberger . The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998; 75(1):23-55. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781. View

Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G . How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019; 22(4):153-160. PMC: 10231495. DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. View

Williams W, Ceci S . National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(17):5360-5. PMC: 4418903. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112. View

Connor P, Weeks M, Glaser J, Chen S, Keltner D . Intersectional implicit bias: Evidence for asymmetrically compounding bias and the predominance of target gender. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2022; 124(1):22-48. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000314. View

Ceci S, Ginther D, Kahn S, Williams W . Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 15(3):75-141. DOI: 10.1177/1529100614541236. View

Koch A, DMello S, Sackett P . A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2014; 100(1):128-61. DOI: 10.1037/a0036734. View

Moss-Racusin C, Dovidio J, Brescoll V, Graham M, Handelsman J . Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(41):16474-9. PMC: 3478626. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109. View

Card D, DellaVigna S, Funk P, Iriberri N . Gender gaps at the academies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(4):e2212421120. PMC: 9942810. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2212421120. View

10.

Forscher P, Cox W, Brauer M, Devine P . Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 3(3):257-264. PMC: 6699508. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y. View

11.

Brehmer Y, Westerberg H, Backman L . Working-memory training in younger and older adults: training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012; 6:63. PMC: 3313479. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00063. View

12.

Baumeister R, Tice D, Bushman B . A Review of Multisite Replication Projects in Social Psychology: Is It Viable to Sustain Any Confidence in Social Psychology's Knowledge Base?. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022; 18(4):912-935. DOI: 10.1177/17456916221121815. View

13.

Nosek B, Smyth F . A multitrait-multimethod validation of the Implicit Association Test: implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs. Exp Psychol. 2007; 54(1):14-29. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.14. View

14.

Handley I, Brown E, Moss-Racusin C, Smith J . Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(43):13201-6. PMC: 4629390. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112. View

15.

Morgan A, Way S, Hoefer M, Larremore D, Galesic M, Clauset A . The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(9). PMC: 7904257. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1996. View

16.

Astegiano J, Sebastian-Gonzalez E, de Toledo Castanho C . Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. R Soc Open Sci. 2019; 6(6):181566. PMC: 6599789. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181566. View

17.

Furukawa T, Leucht S . How to obtain NNT from Cohen's d: comparison of two methods. PLoS One. 2011; 6(4):e19070. PMC: 3083419. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019070. View

18.

Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U . False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22(11):1359-66. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417632. View

19.

Greenwald A, Dasgupta N, Dovidio J, Kang J, Moss-Racusin C, Teachman B . Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2022; 23(1):7-40. PMC: 9121529. DOI: 10.1177/15291006211070781. View

20.

Ceci S, Kahn S, Williams W . Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2023; 24(1):15-73. PMC: 10394402. DOI: 10.1177/15291006231163179. View