Boys are smart (and really dull and pretty average): Testing replication and validity of the Brilliance Stereotype

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113111
Yue Li , Timothy C. Bates
{"title":"Boys are smart (and really dull and pretty average): Testing replication and validity of the Brilliance Stereotype","authors":"Yue Li ,&nbsp;Timothy C. Bates","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A Brilliance Stereotype associating high intellectual ability with men and not women with possible downstream impacts on interests or work has been reported. Here, we report five replications and extensions testing this finding (total <em>N</em> = 737). Studies 1 and 2 were direct replications and found no support for the male brilliance stereotype: Instead, 10-year-old boys and girls both chose own-gender targets as smartest. Study 3 tested stereotyping of the opposite of brilliance – being very dull. Contrary to the brilliance stereotype model, males were stereotyped as dull by both girls and boys (<em>OR</em> = 0.22, <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Study 4 added additional validity checks, but no difference in brilliance stereotype was found between boys and girls (<em>p</em> = .517). We also tested the causal claim that brilliance stereotypes impact career interests. Large gender differences were found for occupational interests (e.g. nursing (<em>β</em> = 0.73 <em>CI</em><sub>95</sub> [0.48, 0.98], <em>t</em> = 5.68, <em>p</em> &lt; .001, scientist/engineer (<em>β</em> = −0.61 <em>CI</em><sub>95</sub> [−0.88, −0.35], <em>t</em> = −4.60, <em>p</em> &lt; .001). Despite this, the brilliance stereotype showed no relationship to any occupational interests (<em>p</em>-values 0.523 to 0.999). Brilliance stereotype, and effects of brilliance stereotype lack internal coherence and predictive validity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"239 ","pages":"Article 113111"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692500073X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A Brilliance Stereotype associating high intellectual ability with men and not women with possible downstream impacts on interests or work has been reported. Here, we report five replications and extensions testing this finding (total N = 737). Studies 1 and 2 were direct replications and found no support for the male brilliance stereotype: Instead, 10-year-old boys and girls both chose own-gender targets as smartest. Study 3 tested stereotyping of the opposite of brilliance – being very dull. Contrary to the brilliance stereotype model, males were stereotyped as dull by both girls and boys (OR = 0.22, p < .001). Study 4 added additional validity checks, but no difference in brilliance stereotype was found between boys and girls (p = .517). We also tested the causal claim that brilliance stereotypes impact career interests. Large gender differences were found for occupational interests (e.g. nursing (β = 0.73 CI95 [0.48, 0.98], t = 5.68, p < .001, scientist/engineer (β = −0.61 CI95 [−0.88, −0.35], t = −4.60, p < .001). Despite this, the brilliance stereotype showed no relationship to any occupational interests (p-values 0.523 to 0.999). Brilliance stereotype, and effects of brilliance stereotype lack internal coherence and predictive validity.
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
男孩很聪明(而且真的很迟钝,很普通):测试聪明刻板印象的复制和有效性
据报道,一种将高智力与男性而非女性联系在一起的“光辉刻板印象”可能对兴趣或工作产生下游影响。在这里,我们报告了5个重复和扩展测试这一发现(总N = 737)。研究1和研究2是直接重复的,没有发现支持男性聪明刻板印象的证据:相反,10岁的男孩和女孩都认为自己的性别目标是最聪明的。研究3测试了对聪明的反面的刻板印象——非常无趣。与才华刻板印象模型相反,男生和女生都认为男生沉闷(OR = 0.22, p <;措施)。研究4增加了额外的效度检验,但在男生和女生之间没有发现才华刻板印象的差异(p = .517)。我们还测试了“才华刻板印象影响职业兴趣”这一因果论断。在职业兴趣方面存在较大的性别差异(如护理)(β = 0.73 CI95 [0.48, 0.98], t = 5.68, p <;措施,科学家/工程师(β=−0.61 CI95(−0.88−0.35),t =−4.60,p & lt;措施)。尽管如此,才华刻板印象与职业兴趣没有任何关系(p值为0.523 ~ 0.999)。卓越刻板印象及其效应缺乏内在一致性和预测效度。
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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
期刊最新文献
Charisma is not just for the bold: Connecting tripartite narcissism and self-reports of charisma aspects Social support and prosocial decisions in times of distress: Helping a single recipient versus multiple recipients Development and validation of the individual and social music listening scale (ISMUS-LI) Proportionality as a predictor of utilitarian sacrifices: Evidence from the Polish MFQ-2 Sensing a rift in reality: Validation of the self-world existential isolation scale
×
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:604180095
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