Controlled Experiment for Gender Bias

[Penumbra]

Sexism is hard to quantify. But in some ways, it can be tested with controlled experimentation.

One example:

But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS [in 2012] by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.

Source.

It's a free country and women can be anything, and that's true. But when women are under-represented in areas, a chunk of it is because of discrimination like this. Identical applications with different gendered names led to a big difference in the scientists' assessment of competence, hire-ability, whether they'd mentor them, and what salary they would give. Both male and female scientists discriminated negatively against the identical applications from the female names.

Similarly:

Researchers presented 222 MBA students with mock prospectuses with data based on a cosmetic surgery company that went through a real IPO led by Goldman Sachs. The prospectuses were identical except for the gender of the CEO and the sex ratio of the top management team. Photos of senior executives were included (and had been pre-tested to ensure they were ranked equally in terms of levels of attractiveness) and showed only Caucasian executives to control for the influence of ethnic or racial biases on the results. While the male: female ratio of the top management team didn’t have an effect on how students evaluated the IPOs, the recommended percentage to invest in the IPO was almost four times higher for firms with male CEOs at the helm than for those with female CEOs. Also, the anticipated share price of IPOs led by male CEOs was approximately 11% higher than those of female-led IPOs. Although both male and female respondents evaluated CEOs of their own gender more favorably, the effect was more pronounced for male respondents. According to the researchers:

“Taken as a whole, our results suggest that gender stereotypes are alive and well. Moreover that such stereotypes impact investment decisions, even though information is available to investors that clearly is counter to the prescriptive implications of stereotypical thinking.”

Source.

In many industries, women start with an inherent disadvantage and have to do better than a man for the same result. Sexism is sometimes measurable and quantitatively evidenced.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In many industries, women start with an inherent disadvantage and have to do better than a man for the same result. Sexism is sometimes measurable and quantitatively evidenced.

I had a sociology class where it was claimed that such a thought is sexist, and that women do not have to work harder than men to get ahead. What was worse is that I argued against this point with a female teacher!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I had a sociology class where it was claimed that such a thought is sexist, and that women do not have to work harder than men to get ahead. What was worse is that I argued against this point with a female teacher!

Did she have any sort of justification for her position? It seems strange for a sociology teacher to hold that position, given that it appears to be against all evidence.

I would have thought there could be useful discussion around when and to what extent gender impacts, but that it does impact is a fact?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did she have any sort of justification for her position? It seems strange for a sociology teacher to hold that position, given that it appears to be against all evidence.

I would have thought there could be useful discussion around when and to what extent gender impacts, but that it does impact is a fact?

Her position was simply that is what the book had, no thinking outside of the lines allowed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Her position was simply that is what the book had, no thinking outside of the lines allowed.

Yuck. Methinks she misses the point of 'teaching'.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yuck. Methinks she misses the point of 'teaching'.

There were a few things I argued with her over, such as animals being self-aware and the mirror test being too biased towards human expectations and standards. But to her, that's not what the science says, even though a couple months later I learned of a recent study that shows all mammals, most birds, and even some reptiles are self-aware.
And though that teacher is far from the only one I've argued with, she has been the only one I've had with such a bias against women and plain observation and inquiry.

 

[Alt Thinker]

There were a few things I argued with her over, such as animals being self-aware and the mirror test being too biased towards human expectations and standards. But to her, that's not what the science says, even though a couple months later I learned of a recent study that shows all mammals, most birds, and even some reptiles are self-aware.
And though that teacher is far from the only one I've argued with, she has been the only one I've had with such a bias against women and plain observation and inquiry.

I have had many dogs in my life and I am as convinced that they were/are self aware as I am that people I know are self aware.

 

[savagewind]

“Taken as a whole, our results suggest that gender stereotypes are alive and well."

I realize that "alive and well" is a cliche but wow! What an editing snafu. I shall say the writer, editor and publisher were all men. All right?