Evidence of Bias Against Girls and Women in Contexts That Emphasize Intellectual Ability
Evidence of Bias Against Girls and Women in Contexts That Emphasize Intellectual Ability
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/amp0000427
复制
发表时间：
2018-12-01
影响因子：
16.4
通讯作者：
Cimpian, Andrei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bian, Lin;Leslie, Sarah-Jane;Cimpian, Andrei
尽管女性在智力上做出了许多贡献，但我们发现在强调智力能力的背景下存在对女性偏见的证据。在第一个实验中，347名参与者被要求介绍个人找工作。大约一半的参与者被引导认为这份工作需要高水平的智力能力;另一半则不然。贝叶斯混合效应逻辑回归显示，当工作描述提到智力能力时，推荐女性的几率降低了38.3%，这与性别偏见的可能性一致。我们还在实验2中发现了性别偏见的证据，实验2是实验1的预注册直接复制，样本更大，更多样化（811名参与者; 44.6%的有色人种）。实验3通过测试幼儿在智力挑战性活动中是否更喜欢男孩而不是女孩，对这种偏见进行了发展研究。5至7岁的儿童（N = 192）被教导如何玩团队游戏。一半的孩子被告知这个游戏是为“非常非常聪明”的孩子准备的;另一半则不是。然后，孩子们从6个不熟悉的孩子中选出3个队友。儿童的最初选择是由内群体偏见驱动的（即，女孩选择女孩，男孩选择男孩），但儿童随后表现出对女孩的偏见，在“聪明”游戏中选择女孩作为队友的比例只有37.6%（在其他游戏中选择女孩的比例为53.4%）。在重视才华的背景下，对妇女和女孩的偏见很早就出现了，很可能是她们成功的障碍。
Despite the numerous intellectual contributions made by women, we find evidence of bias against them in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability. In the first experiment, 347 participants were asked to refer individuals for a job. Approximately half of the participants were led to believe that the job required high-level intellectual ability; the other half were not. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression revealed that the odds of referring a woman were 38.3% lower when the job description mentioned intellectual ability, consistent with the possibility of gender bias. We also found evidence of gender bias in Experiment 2, which was a preregistered direct replication of Experiment 1 with a larger and more diverse sample (811 participants; 44.6% people of color). Experiment 3 provided a developmental investigation of this bias by testing whether young children favor boys over girls in the context of intellectually challenging activities. Five-to 7-year-olds (N = 192) were taught how to play a team game. Half of the children were told that the game was for "really, really smart" children; the other half were not. Children then selected 3 teammates from among 6 unfamiliar children. Children's initial selections were driven by ingroup bias (i.e., girls chose girls and boys chose boys), but children subsequently showed bias against girls, choosing girls as teammates for the "smart" game only 37.6% of the time (vs. 53.4% for the other game). Bias against women and girls in contexts where brilliance is prized emerges early and is a likely obstacle to their success.