A re-evaluation of gender bias in receptiveness to scientific evidence of gender bias.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2024-09-04 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.240419
David R Shanks, Hollie A Coles, Nadia Yeo
{"title":"A re-evaluation of gender bias in receptiveness to scientific evidence of gender bias.","authors":"David R Shanks, Hollie A Coles, Nadia Yeo","doi":"10.1098/rsos.240419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>N</i> = 1171) replication, including three experiments (2 pre-registered) of the prominent study by Handley <i>et al</i>. [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 <i>et al</i>. [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.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371430/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240419","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 N = 1171) replication, including three experiments (2 pre-registered) of the prominent study by Handley et al. [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 et al. [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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新评估接受性别偏见科学证据方面的性别偏见。
在科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)职业的许多方面都有性别偏见的记录,但确定其根本原因的工作一直没有结果。认知偏见,包括女性和男性对性别偏见证据的接受能力不平等,在多大程度上导致了 STEM 中的性别偏见?我们通过对汉德利等人[22]的著名研究进行高功率(总人数 = 1171)复制,包括三项实验(两项预先登记),调查了普通公众在 STEM 背景下的接受能力。实验假设,男性对报告性别偏见证据的研究摘要的评价会低于女性,但男性和女性对与性别偏见无关的研究摘要的评价没有差异。结果显示,评估者的性别对接受性别偏见科学证据的能力没有影响。与 Handley 等人[22]的研究结果不同,这表明要么他们发现的性别偏见在过去十年中已经减少,要么他们的研究结果是假阳性。越来越多的证据表明,一些有影响力的性别偏见认知 "标记 "研究值得重新审视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
Comparative study of the catalytic performance of physically mixed and sequentially utilized γ-alumina and zeolite in methanol-to-propylene reactions. Protein folding, protein dynamics and the topology of self-motions. Biological pest regulation can benefit from diverse predation modes. Spatial and seasonal foraging patterns drive diet differences among north Pacific resident killer whale populations. A new sponge from the Marjum Formation of Utah documents the Cambrian origin of the hexactinellid body plan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1