exposing gender bias when considering male and female authors

Running head: EXPOSING GENDER BIAS 1

Exposing Gender Bias When Considering Male and Female Authors

Patricia A. Cottonaro

Mount Mary University

EXPOSING GENDER BIAS 2

Abstract

This study investigated the possibility of a gender bias among individuals while evaluating the

quality and value of an article. We looked at whether participants would give a higher, meaning

more favorable score, to a male-centric article over an identical female-centric one. The sample

(N=28) read identical articles followed by a Likert style survey assessment. However, one group

read an article with all male names (n=15) and the other group read an article with all female

names (n=13). We found that participants did favorably score the male-centric version (M =

18.6) over the female-centric version (M = 15.77). These results suggest that women’s efforts

are undervalued and judged differently when compared to their male counterparts even when the

work matches exactly.

Keywords: bias blind spot, gender bias, ESL


Exposing Gender Bias When Considering Male and Female Authors

The concept of a bias blind spot, or a person having a bias without being aware of it, has

been studied in previous research. Having a gender bias means that there are pre-existing and

stereotyped feelings that a person has and subconsciously, or not, applies those thoughts through

judgments. This can be very unfair, undeserved, and harmful to progress. Bias and stereotyping

are not unique to gender but will be examined here.

A bias blind spot and a gender bias were found by Roter and Hall (2014). A study cited

in a meta-analysis done by Roter and Hall (2014), found a stronger positive correlation among

male physicians between patient satisfaction and patient centeredness, measured by independent

video tape coders, than for female physicians. They also found that males got more

acknowledgements for being patient centered and were considered concurrently more competent.

There was such relation for the females. Patients appreciate female doctors’ patient centeredness

but because of the overlay in personality they assume of women, they do not see it as an

indication of professional capability, but as an expected behavior. This means the qualities that

constitute patient centered care are underappreciated when patients evaluate female doctors. A

patient centered male doctor is seen as a good doctor, while a patient centered female doctor is

seen merely as a good woman (Roter & Hall 2014).

Another way a gender bias may present itself is in the work place among coworkers.

Cuadrado, Garcia-Ael, and Molero (2015) found that masculine traits where valued as more

important than female characteristics for becoming a successful middle manager regardless of

the condition the subjects were exposed to. They also found that male leaders only need to

exhibit masculine characteristics, while women leaders must also show feminine traits in order to


be perceived as effective by subordinates. This stereotyping contributes to the difficulties

women face in trying to attain and maintain managerial careers.

Careers held by both men and women have been studied to try to uncover differences in

the way their roles are carried out based on gender. A study done by Keenan and Rush (2015)

looked at how the judges of two southern states decided upon sending juveniles to adult court.

The study looked at gender of the judges along with other demographic information such as age,

race, and jurisdiction. It was found that there was no significant differences in the ways judges

make this decision based on the demographic details of the deciding judge. They did point out a

study which indicated judges from rural areas impose more punitive penalties on female

offenders than male offenders when compared with urban area judges (Keenan and Rush 2015).

It was determined that gender had no effect on their decision making ability.

An analysis of English as a second language or ESL books in Hong Kong, again reveal

bias, stigma, and the need for changes. An ordinance passed in 1995 titled the Sex

Discrimination Ordinance, called attention and aimed to fix sexist stereotyping in Hong Kong.

The study of ESL books tries to point out that children learn these stereotypes from the books

they use and the changes made to them since the ordinance passed. The population of women

has surpassed that of men in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2006 (Lee & Collins 2008). While the

number of images and times they appear in the language has increased (not surpassed the men as

in reality) in the ESL books, their roles largely remain passive. They are described as

housewives, victims calling for help, and more concerned with their own looks. There is a

contrast in the language sentence structure examples. Phrases like, Mr. Lam is _______ assistant

manager and Mrs. Lee is ______ housewife. She spends _______ hour _____ day in the health

club to keep fit, perpetuate the learning of a gender bias. The books were encouraged to use the


use of the title Ms. More often. However in the example, they did not. They suggest that a

gender bias is still being learned through the way books represent the world, even if it may be

false.

Due to the gender bias despite the ability of women, we predict that we can unveil a bias

using a simple experiment. A higher score will show a better favoring of the article. We

hypothesize that these predictions will show for the participants of our study through the inherent

favoring of a male-centric article over an identical female-centric article.

Method

Design

A between-groups, simple experiment was done. The independent variables were the two

gender specific versions of an otherwise identical article. The dependent variable of the study

was the participants’ responses and score total to the presented article. The study utilized a

Likert style survey which was pre-approved by the Institutional Review Board. Statements and

degree of agreement were based on assessing the quality and value of the read article.

Participants

We used convenience sampling to collect the sample. Hard copies of an informed

consent form, a male or female article, and a post-article assessment were distributed to the

individuals. A total of 28 subjects voluntarily and without compensation responded to the

survey. Of the 28 there were 8 male and 20 female respondents. The average age of the

participants was 40, S.D. = 12.97. Of those who reported, education levels were: 6 High School

Diploma, 8 some college, 7 bachelor’s degrees, 1 master’s degree, 4 doctorate degree, and 2

claiming NA.


Materials

Participants were randomly given a male of female version of an article. The 2 page

article concerned the effects of the mandatory arrest law in the state of Wisconsin. Although the

content was the same for both articles, slight changes were made to design a male and a female

story. The female article was given a female name for the author and for every name mentioned

in the story. This style also included a small clip art image of a female reporter. For example,

the female author’s version was worded as follows:

The study was a follow-up to the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment from 1987-1989

and undertaken by the same primary researcher, Judith W. Sherman, a University of Maryland

professor and director of Cambridge University's Police Executive Program. The 2014 study was

co-authored by Heather M. Harris from the University of Maryland and will be published in the

Journal of Experimental Criminology. (Luthern, A. 2015).

The male style was given a male author, a male name for every name in the story and a male clip

art image. The wording was changed as follows in the same excerpt as above:

The study was a follow-up to the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment from 1987-1989

and undertaken by the same primary researcher, Lawrence W. Sherman, a University of

Maryland professor and director of Cambridge University's Police Executive Program. The 2014

study was co-authored by Henry M. Harris from the University of Maryland and will be

published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology.

Once the participants completed the reading portion, they were asked to complete a 4

point Likert scale survey. Evaluation statements included sentences such as, “This article was

well written” and “This article has significance to the state of Wisconsin.” The survey offered

four ways to respond in a forced choice format, to a statement and was coded as such: 4 =


strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree. Total scores were given by

adding all the values.

Demographic information was also collected. Gender, age, and highest level of

education were asked of each participant. Each identifier was followed by an NA or not

applicable option for the participant.

Procedure

Convenience sampling was the method of collecting the sample for this experiment.

Potential volunteers were briefed on the purpose, risks, benefits, involvement requirements, and

where they could go for more information. Participants were randomly given a hard copy of a

male or a female version of the study, followed by the survey and demographic inquiry. The

estimated duration of participation was 10 to 15 minutes. They were not given a time limit but

all participants completed the survey in time for data collection. Data collected were used for an

experimental psychology project at Mount Mary University. Final data were analyzed by a t-test

and two-way ANOVA using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Results

Mean values of both the male and female versions were calculated. The male article

was favored with a higher score (M = 18.6, SD = 3.29) while the female article was assessed

lower (M = 15.77, SD = 3.09) refer to figure 1. This supports the hypothesis that the male

version of an identical article would score higher. To determine if the difference in the values is

significant we performed an independent samples t test. The test showed the results were

statistically significant, t (26) =-2.33, p=.028. A Cohen’s d performed produced an effect size

of .88 which is considered a large and strong effect size. This means the average of the male

scores are .88 standard deviations higher than the female scores. A two-way ANOVA was


performed to assess whether there was an interaction between education level and score given.

Data was coded as participants with post high school education or high school being the highest

level of education. Education level does not moderate a gender bias; this is supported by an R-

squared, often called the coefficient of determination value of .202. This shows a weak

relationship.

Discussion

The findings support that a gender bias exists when considering identical work presented

by either a male or a female. The fact that education level does not have an effect suggests that

higher education may not be the way to improve this issue. Changing the way women are

represented as suggested in the Lee and Collins (2008) study may be more effective. An

accusation of a bias can be detrimental. As Schmitt (2015) has stated that it is not appropriate

for an article to propagate the mischaracterization of evolutionary psychology as a particularly

sexist discipline. In his article he argues that false accusations were made about his field of

study being gender biased. There will be push back, but we have a strong effect.

When considering the construct validity of our study, using a four point Likert scale

discourages the fence sitting response set. Having well coded answers makes them

straightforwardly quantifiable. Offering an NA option also promoted any further desired

anonymity and consequently integrity.

Our statistical findings are strong, showing a Cohen’s d of .88 and explaining a way an

expected moderator with an R-squared of .202. This provides confidence that we can support

our original hypothesis.

Some confounds may exist. We did use convenience sampling which does not offer a

true random sample or random assignment for the male or female type articles. Convenience


sampling also decreases the generalizability of the study. Some of the responses were made in

the presence of the researcher which may have caused observers effects and yeah saying.

However the careful wording of the post survey factored out demand effects as there were no

questions about gender of any kind, only statements assessing the articles content and value.

Further research can be done. Another new study could be done using a weaker

manipulation while the current study would serve as a pilot. The weaker manipulation could be

a changing of just the author’s name. This could find just how sensitive the concept of a gender

bias might be. Collecting a more random sample and implementing random assignment would

help the findings generalize to more of the intended population. We would like to see the

supportive findings here used to help populations effected by any bias. A bias blind spot makes

an unfair assumption about otherwise capable, innocent, or qualified people.


References

Cuadrado, I., Garcia-Ael, C., & Molero, F. (2015). Gender-typing of leadership: Evaluations of

real and ideal mangers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 236-244.

Keenan, S. J., Rush, J.P., & Cheeseman, K.A. (2015). Judicial waiver decisions in two southern

states: A study of judicial perceptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 100-

115.

Lee, J. F. K. & Collins, P. (2008). Gender voices in Hong Kong english text books: Some past

and current practices. Sex Roles, 59, 127-137.

Luthern, A, (2014). Study finds link between abuse victims deaths, abuser arrests. Milwaukee

Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from www.jsonline.com

Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (2014). Women doctors don’t get the credit they deserve. Journal of

General Internal Medicine, 30(3), 273-274.

Schmitt, D. P. (2015). On accusations of exceptional male bias in evolutionary psychology:

Placing sex differences in citation counts in proper evidentiary contexts. Evolutionary

Behavioral Sciences, 9, 69-72.

http://www.jsonline.com/


Figure 1. Mean Distribution of Male and Female Assessment Scores

Note. N = 28, Female n = 13, Male n = 15

exposing gender bias when considering male and female authors

Documents