刻板印象威胁是否导致政治知识的性别差距?Ihme和Tausendpfund的预注册复制研究(2018)
IF 3.2
Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
引用次数: 2
摘要
政治知识中的性别差异是政治学中一个公认的发现。对政治知识中性别差异的一种解释是对女性的负面刻板印象的激活。作为开放研究和证据的系统化信心(SCORE)计划的一部分，我们对Ihme和Tausendpfund(2018)的研究2进行了两阶段的预注册和高强度的直接复制。虽然我们成功地复制了政治知识上的性别差异——男性参与者比女性参与者表现得更好——但刻板印象激活效应的第一阶段(N = 671)和第二阶段(N = 831)的复制都是不成功的。综上所述(汇总N = 1,502)，结果表明刻板印象激活对政治知识的性别差异没有影响。我们讨论了这些发现的潜在解释，并提出证据表明政治知识中的性别差距可能是知识测量方式的产物。本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
Does Stereotype Threat Contribute to the Political Knowledge Gender Gap? A Preregistered Replication Study of Ihme and Tausendpfund (2018)
The gender gap in political knowledge is a well-established finding in Political Science. One explanation for gender differences in political knowledge is the activation of negative stereotypes about women. As part of the Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program, we conducted a two-stage preregistered and high-powered direct replication of Study 2 of Ihme and Tausendpfund (2018). While we successfully replicated the gender gap in political knowledge – such that male participants performed better than female participants – both the first (N = 671) and second stage (N = 831) of the replication of the stereotype activation effect were unsuccessful. Taken together (pooled N = 1,502), results indicate evidence of absence of the effect of stereotype activation on gender differences in political knowledge. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and put forward evidence that the gender gap in political knowledge might be an artifact of how knowledge is measured.
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
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
