Suppr超能文献

性别如何决定我们谈论专业人士的方式。

How gender determines the way we speak about professionals.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 10;115(28):7278-7283. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805284115. Epub 2018 Jun 25.

Abstract

Gender inequality persists in many professions, particularly in high-status fields, such as science, technology, engineering, and math. We report evidence of a form of gender bias that may contribute to this state: gender influences the way that people speak about professionals. When discussing professionals or their work, it is common to refer to them by surname alone (e.g., "Darwin developed the theory of evolution"). We present evidence that people are more likely to refer to male than female professionals in this way. This gender bias emerges in archival data across domains; students reviewing professors online and pundits discussing politicians on the radio are more likely to use surname when speaking about a man (vs. a woman). Participants' self-reported references also indicate a preference for using surname when speaking about male (vs. female) scientists, authors, and others. Finally, experimental evidence provides convergent evidence: participants writing about a fictional male scientist are more likely to refer to him by surname than participants writing about an otherwise identical female scientist. We find that, on average, people are over twice as likely to refer to male professionals by surname than female professionals. Critically, we identified consequences of this gender bias in speaking about professionals. Researchers referred to by surname are judged as more famous and eminent. They are consequently seen as higher status and more deserving of eminence-related benefits and awards. For instance, scientists referred to by surname were seen as 14% more deserving of a National Science Foundation career award.

摘要

性别不平等在许多职业中仍然存在,尤其是在科学、技术、工程和数学等地位较高的领域。我们报告了一种可能导致这种状况的性别偏见形式的证据:性别影响人们谈论专业人士的方式。在讨论专业人士或他们的工作时,通常只称呼他们的姓氏(例如,“达尔文提出了进化论”)。我们有证据表明,人们更倾向于以这种方式称呼男性专业人士而不是女性专业人士。这种性别偏见出现在各个领域的档案数据中;学生在网上评论教授,专家在广播中讨论政治家时,更倾向于用姓氏来指代男性(而不是女性)。参与者的自我报告也表明,他们更倾向于用姓氏来指代男性(而不是女性)科学家、作家和其他人。最后,实验证据提供了趋同的证据:参与者在撰写虚构的男性科学家时,更倾向于用姓氏来指代他,而不是在撰写同名的女性科学家时。我们发现,平均而言,人们用姓氏来指代男性专业人士的可能性是女性专业人士的两倍多。至关重要的是,我们在谈论专业人士时发现了这种性别偏见的后果。被称为姓氏的研究人员被认为更有名望。因此,他们被视为地位更高,更值得获得与威望相关的利益和奖励。例如,被称为姓氏的科学家被认为更值得获得国家科学基金会职业奖。

相似文献

1
How gender determines the way we speak about professionals.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 10;115(28):7278-7283. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805284115. Epub 2018 Jun 25.
2
Estimating Implicit and Explicit Gender Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Surgeons.
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jul 3;2(7):e196545. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6545.
3
Sexism in a UK-wide medical examination.
Clin Med (Lond). 2022 Nov;22(6):584-585. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0360.
6
Gender-based disparities and biases in science: An observational study of a virtual conference.
PLoS One. 2023 Jun 7;18(6):e0286811. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286811. eCollection 2023.
7
Exploring bias in mechanical engineering students' perceptions of classmates.
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 7;14(3):e0212477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212477. eCollection 2019.
8
Gender Bias Experiences of Female Surgical Trainees.
J Surg Educ. 2019 Nov-Dec;76(6):e1-e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.07.024. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
9
The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar 5;116(10):4182-4187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810862116. Epub 2019 Feb 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Gender differences in resume language and gender gaps in salary expectations.
J R Soc Interface. 2025 Jun;22(227):20240784. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2024.0784. Epub 2025 Jun 4.
2
Quantifying behavior-based gender discrimination on collaborative platforms.
PNAS Nexus. 2025 Jan 27;4(2):pgaf026. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf026. eCollection 2025 Feb.
3
Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market.
Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Feb;9(2):316-330. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02062-9. Epub 2024 Nov 19.
4
Gender rating gap in online reviews.
Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Mar;9(3):507-520. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02003-6. Epub 2024 Oct 7.
5
Sex bias in pain management decisions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Aug 13;121(33):e2401331121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2401331121. Epub 2024 Aug 5.
6
Cognitive causes of 'like me' race and gender biases in human language production.
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Sep;8(9):1706-1715. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01943-3. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
7
The Gender of the Sender: Assessing Gender Biases of Greetings in Patient Portal Messages.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Feb;32(2):171-177. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2022.0333. Epub 2022 Dec 1.
8
Quantifying gender biases towards politicians on Reddit.
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0274317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274317. eCollection 2022.
9
Gender inequities in the online dissemination of scholars' work.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 28;118(39). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2102945118.
10
Having female role models correlates with PhD students' attitudes toward their own academic success.
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 18;16(8):e0255095. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255095. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
The Matthew effect in science funding.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 May 8;115(19):4887-4890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115. Epub 2018 Apr 23.
2
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 28;114(48):12708-12713. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
3
Our obsession with eminence warps research.
Nature. 2017 Jul 4;547(7661):7. doi: 10.1038/547007a.
4
Speaker Introductions at Internal Medicine Grand Rounds: Forms of Address Reveal Gender Bias.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 May;26(5):413-419. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6044. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
5
Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines.
Science. 2015 Jan 16;347(6219):262-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1261375.
6
Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):16474-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109. Epub 2012 Sep 17.
7
National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 30;106(26):10593-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106. Epub 2009 Jun 22.
9
Gender gaps: who needs to be explained?
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Jul;61(1):5-12. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.1.5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验