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

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 43, 2015, Pages 13201-13206

  Handley, Ian M ^a   Brown, Elizabeth R ^a,b   Moss Racusin, Corinne A ^c   Smith, Jessi L ^a  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c SKIDMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Gender bias; Science education; Science workforce; Sexism

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; INTERGROUP BIAS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACISM; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STEREOTYPY; UNIVERSITY; YOUNG ADULT; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ENGINEERING; MATHEMATICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SEXISM;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SCIENCE; SEXISM;

EID: 84945579539     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science, and National Academy of Engineering (1992) Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process (National Academy, Washington, DC), Vol 1. Available at www.nap.edu/openbook. php?isbn=0309047315. Accessed September 11, 2014.
2. de Melo-Martín I, Intemann K (2012) Interpreting evidence: why values can matter as much as science. Perspect Biol Med 55(1):59-70.
3. Carnes M, et al. (2012) Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. J Divers High Educ 5(2):63-77.
4. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
5. Al-Gazali L (2013) Remove social barriers. Nature 495:35-36.
6. Ceci SJ, Williams WM (2011) Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(8):3157-3162.
7. Shen H (2013) Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature 495(7439):22-24.
8. National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Arlington, VA). Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/. Accessed September 11, 2014.
9. Snyder TD, Dillow SA, Hoffman CM (2009) Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC), NCES Publ No 2009-020. Available at nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2014.
10. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J (2012) Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(41):16474-16479.
11. Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014) How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(12):4403-4408.
12. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M (2013) The Maltida effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun 35(5):603-625.
13. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504(7479):211-213.
14. Schroeder J, et al. (2013) Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. J Evol Biol 26(9):2063-2069.
15. Sheltzer JM, Smith JC (2014) Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(28):10107-10112.
16. Jaschik S (2014) Productivity or Sexism? Inside Higher Education. Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/18/study-raises-questions-about-why-women-areless-likely-men-earn-tenure-research. Accessed September 11, 2014.
17. Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D (1999) The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7/8):509-528.
18. Devine PG (1989) Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(1):5-18.
19. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102(1):4-27.
20. Swim JK, Scott ED, Sechrist GB, Campbell B, Stangor C (2003) The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(5):944-959.
21. Uhlmann EL, Cohen GL (2007) "I think it, therefore it's true": Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 104(7):207-223.
22. Baron AS, Banaji MR (2006) The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychol Sci 17(1):53-58.
23. Knutson KM, Mah L, Manly CF, Grafman J (2007) Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about gender and race. Hum Brain Mapp 28(10):915-930.
24. Becker JC, Swim JK (2011) Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychol Women Q 35(2):227-242.
25. Apfelbaum EP, Phillips KW, Richeson JA (2014) Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity? Perspect Psychol Sci 9(3):235-244.
26. Page SE (2007) Making the difference: Applying the logic of diversity. Acad Manage Perspect 21(4):6-20.
27. Freeman RB, Huang W (2014) Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Co-Authorship Within the US. (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA), NBER Working Paper No 19905. Available at www.nber.org/papers/w19905. Accessed September 11, 2014.
28. National Science Board (2012) Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Arlington, VA). Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/. Accessed September 11, 2014.
29. Tabak LA, Collins FS (2011) Sociology. Weaving a richer tapestry in biomedical science. Science 333(6045):940-941.
30. National Institutes of Health (2014) Enhancing the Diversity of the NIH-Funded Workforce (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda). Available at commonfund.nih.gov/diversity/Initiatives. Accessed September 11, 2014.
31. Moss-Racusin CA, et al. (2014) Social science. Scientific diversity interventions. Science 343(6171):615-616.
32. US Department of Education (2014) Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Available at www.ed.gov/stem. Accessed September 11, 2014.
33. Obama BH (2013) State of the Union Address. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address. Accessed September 11, 2014.
34. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012) Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC). Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final-feb.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2014.
35. Moss-Racusin CA, Molenda AK, Cramer CR (2015) Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychol Women Q 39(2): 194-209.
36. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds Worchel S, Austin WG (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), pp 7-24.
37. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B (2002) Self and social identity. Annu Rev Psychol 53(1): 161-186.
38. Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR (2001) The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one's prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. J Exp Soc Psychol 37(6):510-517.
39. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA (2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit Psychol 25(6):881-919.
40. Ecklund EH, Lincoln AE, Tansey C (2012) Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gend Soc 26(5):693-717.
41. Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford Univ Press, Stanford, CA).
42. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480-498.
43. Curtis JW(2010) Faculty Salary Equity: Still a Gender Gap? On Campus with Women 39(1). Available at archive.aacu.org/ocww/volume39-1/feature.cfm?section=2. Accessed August 20, 2014.
44. Boyle PJ, Smith LK, Cooper NJ, Williams KS, O'Connor H (2015) Gender balance: Women are funded more fairly in social science. Nature 525(7568):181-183.
45. Wenneras C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387(6631): 341-343.
46. McIntosh P (1988) White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Peace and Freedom. Available at nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisibleknapsack. Accessed September 25, 2015.
47. Norton MI, Sommers SR (2011) Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect Psychol Sci 6(3):215-218.
48. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098-2109.
49. Mahoney MJ (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1(2):161-175.
50. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).
51. American Association of University Women (2010) Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (American Association of University Women, Washington, DC). Available at www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-womenin-science-technology-engineering-mathematics/. Accessed September 11, 2014.
52. Ginther DK, Kahn S (2006) Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001 (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA), NBER Working Paper No 12691. Available at www.nber.org/papers/w12691. Accessed September 11, 2014.
53. National Science Foundation (2010) Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Arlington, VA). Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/. Accessed September 11, 2014.
54. Brewer MB (1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate. J Soc Issues 55(3):429-444.
55. Shields SA, Zawadzki MJ, Johnson RN (2011) The impact of a workshop activity for gender equity simulation in the academy (WAGES-Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. J Divers High Educ 4(2):120-129.
56. Zawadzki MJ, Danube CL, Shields SA (2012) How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles 67(11-12):605-616.
57. Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(46):16385-16389.
58. Kasof J (1993) Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychol Bull 113(1):140-163.
59. Mackie DM, Worth LT, Asuncion AG (1990) Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(5):812-822.
60. Maitner AT, Mackie DM, Claypool HM, Crisp RJ (2010) Identity salience moderates processing of group-relevant information. J Exp Soc Psychol 46(2):441-444.