Reactions to research on sex differences: Effect of sex favoured, researcher sex, and importance of sex-difference domain

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY British journal of psychology Pub Date : 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1111/bjop.12580
Steve Stewart-Williams, Xiu Ling Wong, Chern Yi Marybeth Chang, Andrew G. Thomas
{"title":"Reactions to research on sex differences: Effect of sex favoured, researcher sex, and importance of sex-difference domain","authors":"Steve Stewart-Williams,&nbsp;Xiu Ling Wong,&nbsp;Chern Yi Marybeth Chang,&nbsp;Andrew G. Thomas","doi":"10.1111/bjop.12580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Two studies (total <i>N</i> = 778) looked at (1) how people react to research finding a sex difference depending on whether the research puts men or women in a better light and (2) how well people can predict the average man and average woman's reactions. Participants read a fictional popular-science article about fictional research finding either a male- or a female-favouring sex difference. The research was credited to either a male or a female lead researcher. In both studies, both sexes reacted less positively to differences favouring males; in contrast to our earlier research, however, the effect was larger among female participants. Contrary to a widespread expectation, participants did not react less positively to research led by a female. Participants did react less positively, though, to research led by a <i>male</i> when the research reported a male-favouring difference in a highly valued trait. Participants judged male-favouring research to be lower in quality than female-favouring research, apparently in large part because they saw the former as more harmful. In both studies, participants predicted that the average man and woman would exhibit substantial own-sex favouritism, with both sexes predicting more own-sex favouritism from the other sex than the other sex predicted from itself. In making these predictions, participants overestimated women's own-sex favouritism, and got the direction of the effect wrong for men. A greater understanding of the tendency to overestimate gender-ingroup bias could help quell antagonisms between the sexes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":"113 4","pages":"960-986"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12580","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Two studies (total N = 778) looked at (1) how people react to research finding a sex difference depending on whether the research puts men or women in a better light and (2) how well people can predict the average man and average woman's reactions. Participants read a fictional popular-science article about fictional research finding either a male- or a female-favouring sex difference. The research was credited to either a male or a female lead researcher. In both studies, both sexes reacted less positively to differences favouring males; in contrast to our earlier research, however, the effect was larger among female participants. Contrary to a widespread expectation, participants did not react less positively to research led by a female. Participants did react less positively, though, to research led by a male when the research reported a male-favouring difference in a highly valued trait. Participants judged male-favouring research to be lower in quality than female-favouring research, apparently in large part because they saw the former as more harmful. In both studies, participants predicted that the average man and woman would exhibit substantial own-sex favouritism, with both sexes predicting more own-sex favouritism from the other sex than the other sex predicted from itself. In making these predictions, participants overestimated women's own-sex favouritism, and got the direction of the effect wrong for men. A greater understanding of the tendency to overestimate gender-ingroup bias could help quell antagonisms between the sexes.

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
对性别差异研究的反应:性别偏好的影响,研究者性别,以及性别差异领域的重要性
两项研究(总N = 778)研究了(1)人们对研究发现性别差异的反应,这取决于研究是把男性还是女性放在更好的位置上;(2)人们能在多大程度上预测男性和女性的平均反应。参与者阅读了一篇虚构的科普文章,文章讲述了一项虚构的研究,发现男性或女性偏好性别差异。这项研究归功于一位男性或一位女性首席研究员。在这两项研究中,两性对有利于男性的差异的反应都不那么积极;然而,与我们之前的研究相反,女性参与者的影响更大。与普遍的预期相反,参与者对女性领导的研究并没有做出不积极的反应。然而,当一项由男性领导的研究报告了男性在一项高度重视的特质上的偏好差异时,参与者的反应确实不那么积极。参与者认为,偏袒男性的研究比偏袒女性的研究质量更低,显然在很大程度上是因为他们认为前者更有害。在这两项研究中,参与者都预测,男性和女性一般都会表现出明显的同性偏袒,两性都预测对方会比对方预测自己更偏袒自己。在做出这些预测时,参与者高估了女性对自己性别的偏爱,而对男性的影响方向是错误的。对高估性别群体偏见的倾向有更深入的了解,可能有助于平息两性之间的对立。
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
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
期刊最新文献
Expressive suppression strengthens coherence between arousal intensity and arousal interpretation. The use of AI in psychology: A historical perspective. Neurodivergence and well-being: The fulfilment of fundamental psychological needs, work-related stress and life satisfaction. Exploring the associations of generalized trust, climate change conspiracy beliefs and freecycling: Empirical evidence from 34 cultures. Spatial memory under emotion: Effects across encoding, maintenance and retrieval.
×
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