How gender determines the way we speak about professionals

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

Volumn 115, Issue 28, 2018, Pages 7278-7283

  Atir, Stav ^a   Ferguson, Melissa J ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Gender; Gender bias; Judgment; Reference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; DECISION MAKING; GENDER; GENDER BIAS; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL IMAGE; SCIENTIST; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL STATUS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; SEXISM; SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPEECH;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXISM; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPEECH;

EID: 85049650180     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805284115     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Proctor BD, Semega JL, Kollar MA (2016) Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC).
2. National Science Board (2016) Science and engineering indicators 2016 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA), NSB-2016-1.
3. Mo CH (2015) The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Polit Behav 37:357–395.
4. Nosek BA, et al. (2009) National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 10593–10597.
5. Leslie SJ, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E (2015) Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347:262–265.
6. Riffkin R (2014) Americans Still Prefer a Male Boss to a Female Boss. Gallup News. Available at news.gallup.com/poll/178484/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss. aspx. Accessed June 6, 2018.
7. 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: 16474–16479.
8. Uscinski JE, Goren LJ (2011) What’s in a name? Coverage of senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 democratic primary. Polit Res Q 64:884–896.
9. Messner MA, Duncan MC, Jensen K (1993) Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gend Soc 7:121–137.
10. Halbert C, Latimer M (1994) “Battling” gendered language: An analysis of the language used by sports commentators in a televised coed tennis competition. Sociol Sport J 11:298–308.
11. Cejka MA, Eagly AH (1999) Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:413–423.
12. Cuddy AJ, Fiske ST, Glick P (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 40:61–149.
13. Langford T, MacKinnon NJ (2000) The affective bases for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Soc Psychol Q 63:34–48.
14. Cowan G, Kasen JH (1974) Form of reference: Sex differences in letters of recommendation. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:636–645.
15. Files JA, et al. (2017) Speaker introductions at internal medicine grand rounds: Forms of address reveal gender bias. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 26:413–419.
16. Takiff HA, Sanchez DT, Stewart TL (2001) What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychol Women Q 25: 134–144.
17. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63.
18. Vazire S (2017) Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature 547:7.
19. Azoulay P, Stuart T, Wang Y (2013) Matthew: Effect or fable? Manage Sci 60: 92–109.
20. Gush J, Jaffe A, Larsen V, Laws A (2017) The effect of public funding on research output: The New Zealand Marsden Fund. New Zeal Econ Pap 51:1–22.
21. Tol RS (2009) The Matthew effect defined and tested for the 100 most prolific economists. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 60:420–426.
22. Tomkins A, Zhangb M, Heavlin WD (2017) Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:12708–12713.
23. Costas R, Bordons M, Van Leeuwen TN, Van Raan AF (2009) Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 60:740–753.
24. Bol T, de Vaan M, van de Rijt A (2018) The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:4887–4890.
25. McConnell AR, Fazio RH (1996) Women as men and people: Effects of gender-marked language. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22:1004–1013.
26. Goldin C, Shim M (2004) Making a name: Women’s surnames at marriage and beyond. J Econ Perspect 18:143–160.
27. Hamilton MC (1991) Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = male, male = people. Psychol Women Q 15:393–402.
28. Miller DT, Taylor B, Buck ML (1991) Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? J Pers Soc Psychol 61:5–12.