谁相信性别研究?读者的性别如何影响对性别研究的评价

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Chloe Grace Hart, Charlotte H. Townsend, Solène Delecourt
{"title":"谁相信性别研究?读者的性别如何影响对性别研究的评价","authors":"Chloe Grace Hart, Charlotte H. Townsend, Solène Delecourt","doi":"10.1177/01902725241234855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior research finds that relative to women, men are less receptive to scientific evidence of gender bias against women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, whereas the researcher’s gender does not influence evaluations of gender research. Do these effects hold for research documenting workplace gender inequalities more generally? In a preregistered survey experiment fielded on Prolific, survey participants were shown tweets from a fictitious researcher—a woman or a man—that summarized recent research about workplace gender inequality, and then they were asked to rate the research. Consistent with prior work, men viewed research findings about workplace gender inequality less positively than women; researcher gender did not significantly influence evaluations. Men’s higher endorsement of gender system justification beliefs and hostile sexism appear to partially explain their less positive views, suggesting that men view gender research less positively in part because it challenges the idea that men’s relative advantages in the workplace are natural and earned.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Believes Gender Research? How Readers’ Gender Shapes the Evaluation of Gender Research\",\"authors\":\"Chloe Grace Hart, Charlotte H. Townsend, Solène Delecourt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01902725241234855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior research finds that relative to women, men are less receptive to scientific evidence of gender bias against women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, whereas the researcher’s gender does not influence evaluations of gender research. Do these effects hold for research documenting workplace gender inequalities more generally? In a preregistered survey experiment fielded on Prolific, survey participants were shown tweets from a fictitious researcher—a woman or a man—that summarized recent research about workplace gender inequality, and then they were asked to rate the research. Consistent with prior work, men viewed research findings about workplace gender inequality less positively than women; researcher gender did not significantly influence evaluations. Men’s higher endorsement of gender system justification beliefs and hostile sexism appear to partially explain their less positive views, suggesting that men view gender research less positively in part because it challenges the idea that men’s relative advantages in the workplace are natural and earned.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241234855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241234855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究发现,与女性相比,男性更不容易接受科学、技术、工程和数学领域对女性存在性别偏见的科学证据,而研究者的性别并不影响对性别研究的评价。这些影响是否适用于更广泛的记录工作场所性别不平等的研究?在 Prolific 网站上进行的一项预先登记的调查实验中,调查参与者会看到一位虚构的研究人员(女性或男性)所发的推文,该推文总结了近期有关工作场所性别不平等的研究,然后要求他们对该研究进行评价。与之前的研究结果一致,男性对职场性别不平等研究结果的正面评价低于女性;研究者的性别对评价没有显著影响。男性对性别系统合理性信念和敌意性别歧视的认可度较高,这似乎可以部分解释他们较低的正面评价,表明男性对性别研究的评价较低,部分原因是研究质疑了男性在职场中的相对优势是自然和应得的这一观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who Believes Gender Research? How Readers’ Gender Shapes the Evaluation of Gender Research
Prior research finds that relative to women, men are less receptive to scientific evidence of gender bias against women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, whereas the researcher’s gender does not influence evaluations of gender research. Do these effects hold for research documenting workplace gender inequalities more generally? In a preregistered survey experiment fielded on Prolific, survey participants were shown tweets from a fictitious researcher—a woman or a man—that summarized recent research about workplace gender inequality, and then they were asked to rate the research. Consistent with prior work, men viewed research findings about workplace gender inequality less positively than women; researcher gender did not significantly influence evaluations. Men’s higher endorsement of gender system justification beliefs and hostile sexism appear to partially explain their less positive views, suggesting that men view gender research less positively in part because it challenges the idea that men’s relative advantages in the workplace are natural and earned.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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