Reactions to research on sex differences: Effect of sex favoured, researcher sex, and importance of sex-difference domain.
gender
male privilege
sex differences
sexism
women are wonderful effect
Journal
British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)
ISSN: 2044-8295
Titre abrégé: Br J Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
revised:
02
06
2022
received:
21
10
2021
accepted:
08
06
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
13
10
2022
entrez:
18
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
960-986Subventions
Organisme : University of Nottingham Malaysia
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The British Psychological Society.
Références
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Ashokkumar, A., Talaifar, S., Fraser, W. T., Landabur, R., Buhrmester, M., Gómez, Á., Paredes, B., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2020). Censoring political opposition online: Who does it and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104031
Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C. F. (1991). Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700201
Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Is there anything good about men? How cultures flourish by exploiting men. Oxford University Press.
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2, 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2020). Research suffers when we all agree: How sociopolitical homogeneity impairs critical thinking in the academy. In R. J. Sternberg & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 173-196). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684354.009
Cesario, B. (2020). Attitudes about victims of workplace sexual harassment based on sex. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2020.100006
Clark, C. J., Winegard, B. M., & Farkas, D. (2020). A cross-cultural analysis of censorship on campuses. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Clark, C. J., Graso, M., Redstone, I., & Tetlock, P. E. (2022). Harm hypervigilance in public reactions to scientific evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Colombo, M., Bucher, L., & Inbar, Y. (2016). Explanatory judgment, moral offense and value-free science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7, 743-763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0282-z
Crawford, J. T. (2012). The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.004
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
FeldmanHall, O., Dalgleish, T., Evans, D., Navrady, L., Tedeschi, E., & Mobbs, D. (2016). Moral chivalry: Gender and harm sensitivity predict costly altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 542-551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616647448
Flynn, J. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., Manganelli, A. M., Pek, J. C., Huang, L. L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Rodríguez Castro, Y., Pereira, M. L., Willemsen, T. M., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I., & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816530
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Gilford Press.
Hehman, J. A., Salmon, C. A., Pulford, A., Ramirez, E., & Jonason, P. K. (2022). Who perceives sexual harassment? Sex differences and the impact of mate value, sex of perpetrator, and sex of target. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111288
Henry, P. J., & Napier, J. L. (2017). Education is related to greater ideological prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 930-942. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx038
Honeycutt, N., & Freberg, L. (2017). The liberal and conservative experience across academic disciplines: An extension of Inbar and Lammers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616667617
Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M. J., Popovich, D. L., & Bakamitsos, G. A. (2017). Mean centering, multicollinearity, and moderators in multiple regression: The reconciliation redux. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 403-404. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0827-9
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792
Jampol, L., & Zayas, V. (2021). Gendered white lies: Women are given inflated performance feedback compared with men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220916622
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603-625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
Krawczyk, M., & Smyk, M. (2016). Author's gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment. European Economic Review, 90, 326-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.02.017
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2019). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4
Martin, C. C., & Nezlek, J. B. (2014). The white ceiling heuristic and the underestimation of Asian-American income. PLOS ONE, 9, e108732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108732
Mercier, B., Celniker, J. B., & Shariff, A. F. (2022). Overestimating reported prejudice causes Democrats to believe disadvantaged groups are less electable. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12820
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 14864-14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117
Olsen, N. J., & Willemsen, E. W. (1978). Studying sex prejudice in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1978.10533378
Reynolds, T., Howard, C., Sjåstad, H., Zhu, L., Okimoto, T. G., Baumeister, R. F., Aquino, K., & Kim, J. (2020). Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.05.002
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., Barea-Arroyo, P., Berge, M. L., Bjørndal, L. D., Bursalıoğlu, A., Bühler, V., Čadek, M., Çetinçelik, M., Clay, G., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., Damnjanović, K., Dugue, T. M., Esberg, M., Esteban-Serna, C., … Folke, T. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1369-1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
Stewart-Williams, S. (2002). Gender, the perception of aggression, and the overestimation of gender bias. Sex Roles, 46, 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019665803317
Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The ape that understood the universe: How the mind and culture evolve. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108348140
Stewart-Williams, S., Chang, C. Y. M., Wong, X. L., Blackburn, J. D., & Thomas, A. G. (2021). Reactions to male-favouring versus female-favouring sex differences: A pre-registered experiment and Southeast Asian replication. British Journal of Psychology, 112, 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12463
Stewart-Williams, S., Wong, X. L., Chang, C. Y. M., & Thomas, A. G. (2022). People react more positively to female- than to male-favoring sex differences: A direct replication of a counterintuitive finding. PLOS ONE, 17, e0266171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266171
von Hippel, W., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Do ideological driven scientific agendas impede understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology? In J. T. Crawford & L. Jussim (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 7-25). Routledge.
Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972-980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
Winegard, B. M., Clark, C. J., Hasty, C. R., & Baumeister, R. (2018). Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Zucker, I., & Prendergast, B. J. (2020). Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biology of Sex Differences, 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-020-00308-5