“I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination

Uhlmann, Eric Luis; Cohen, Geoffrey L.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001

Cited by 181 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, physicians' vast knowledge of scientific data may create a strong belief in their personal objectivity, promoting bias in decision-making. 21 The most commonly used measure of implicit bias is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a computerized timed dual categorization task that measures implicit preferences by bypassing conscious processing. 22 The Black/White: Good/Bad IAT is most frequently used to assess implicit race bias.…”

Section: Physicians and Implicit Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Physicians and Implicit Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, we note that greater motivation does not always result in greater objectivity. In fact, biases can influence people's judgments even more so when they are motivated to be accurate, particularly if they do not notice that their thought process is biased (21,42).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As another example, Knobloch-Westerwick et al (12) found that graduate students evaluate science-related conference abstracts more positively when attributed to a male relative to a female author, particularly in male-gender-typed science fields. These biases are frequently unintentional (18)(19)(20), exhibited even by individuals who greatly value fairness and view themselves as objective (21). Indeed, gender biases often result from unconscious processes (22,23) or manifest so subtly that they escape notice (24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Handley

Brown

Moss‐Racusin

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

195

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.gender bias | science workforce | diversity | science education | sexism O bjectivity is a fundamental value in the practice of science and is required to optimally assess one's own research findings, others' findings, and the merits of others' abilities and ideas (1). For example, when scientists evaluate data collected on a potentially controversial topic (such as climate change), they strive to set aside their own belief systems and instead focus solely on the strength of the data and conclusions warranted. Similarly, when scientists evaluate a resume for a laboratory-manager position or assess the importance of a conference submission, the gender of the applicant or author should be immaterial. If they are truly objective, scientists should focus only on the relevant criteria of applicant qualifications or research merit.However, despite rigorous training in the objective evaluation of information and resultant values (2), people working and learning within the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) community are still prone to the same subtle biases that subvert objectivity and distort accurate perceptions of scientific evidence by the general public (3, 4). We focus here on the robust gender biases documented repeatedly within the psychological literature (5-7). Some within the STEM community have turned to these methods and ideas as an explanation for the c...

show abstract

“…On the one hand, although considerable research demonstrates gender bias in a variety of other domains (19)(20)(21)(22)(23), science faculty members may not exhibit this bias because they have been rigorously trained to be objective. On the other hand, research demonstrates that people who value their objectivity and fairness are paradoxically particularly likely to fall prey to biases, in part because they are not on guard against subtle bias (24,25). Thus, by investigating whether science faculty exhibit a bias that could contribute to the gender disparity within the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (in which objectivity is emphasized), the current study addressed critical theoretical and practical gaps in that it provided an experimental test of faculty discrimination against female students within academic science.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Moss‐Racusin

Dovidio²,

Brescoll

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

2,366

1,845

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study ( n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

show abstract

“I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination

Cited by 181 publications

References 81 publications

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

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

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About