Intersectional Male-Centric and White-Centric Biases in Collective Concepts.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
April H Bailey, Adina Williams, Aashna Poddar, Andrei Cimpian
{"title":"Intersectional Male-Centric and White-Centric Biases in Collective Concepts.","authors":"April H Bailey, Adina Williams, Aashna Poddar, Andrei Cimpian","doi":"10.1177/01461672241232114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In principle, the fundamental concepts person, woman, and man should apply equally to people of different genders and races/ethnicities. In reality, these concepts might prioritize certain groups over others. Based on interdisciplinary theories of <i>androcentrism</i>, we hypothesized that (a) person is more associated with men than women (person = man) and (b) woman is more associated with women than man is with men (i.e., women are more gendered: gender = woman). We applied natural language processing tools (specifically, word embeddings) to the linguistic output of millions of individuals (specifically, the Common Crawl corpus). We found the hypothesized person = man / gender = woman bias. This bias was stronger about Hispanic and White (vs. Asian) women and men. We also uncovered parallel biases favoring White individuals in the concepts person, woman, and man. Western society prioritizes men and White individuals as <i>people</i> and \"others\" women as <i>people with gender</i>, with implications for equity across policy- and decision-making contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241232114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In principle, the fundamental concepts person, woman, and man should apply equally to people of different genders and races/ethnicities. In reality, these concepts might prioritize certain groups over others. Based on interdisciplinary theories of androcentrism, we hypothesized that (a) person is more associated with men than women (person = man) and (b) woman is more associated with women than man is with men (i.e., women are more gendered: gender = woman). We applied natural language processing tools (specifically, word embeddings) to the linguistic output of millions of individuals (specifically, the Common Crawl corpus). We found the hypothesized person = man / gender = woman bias. This bias was stronger about Hispanic and White (vs. Asian) women and men. We also uncovered parallel biases favoring White individuals in the concepts person, woman, and man. Western society prioritizes men and White individuals as people and "others" women as people with gender, with implications for equity across policy- and decision-making contexts.

集体概念中以男性为中心和以白人为中心的交叉偏见。
原则上,"人"、"女人 "和 "男人 "等基本概念应平等适用于不同性别和种族/民族的人。但在现实中,这些概念可能会将某些群体置于其他群体之上。基于跨学科的 "雄性中心主义 "理论,我们假设:(a) "人 "更多地与男性联系在一起,而不是与女性联系在一起("人"="人");(b) "女人 "更多地与女性联系在一起,而不是与男性联系在一起(即,"女人 "更多地被性别化:"性别"="女人")。我们将自然语言处理工具(特别是词嵌入)应用于数百万人的语言输出(特别是普通爬行语料库)。我们发现了假设的人=男人/性别=女人偏差。这种偏见在西班牙裔和白人(相对于亚裔)女性和男性中更为明显。我们还发现,在 "人"、"女人 "和 "男人 "这些概念中也存在着偏向白人的平行偏见。西方社会优先将男性和白人视为人,而将 "他人 "女性视为有性别的人,这对政策和决策环境中的公平产生了影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信