Gender bias: Complexity and subtlety in patterns of stereotyping and prejudice

1. Gender bias: Complexity and subtlety in patterns of stereotyping and prejudice Monica Biernat Department of Psychology University of Kansas

2. Some data on representation of women in academe

3. % Female BS Recipients v. Faculty (from Nelson, 2007; data from 2000-2002)

4. % Female PhDs v. Asst Professors (from Nelson, 2007; data from 1993-2002)

5. % Female faculty within each rank (from Nelson, 2007; data from 2002)

6. Gender salary gap by academic rank (from Ginther, 2007, data from 2001 SDR)

7. Reasons for these patterns are many • Lack of role models/encouragement at all levels • Lesser access to networks • Childcare responsibilities • Dual career issues • But least some gender discrepancies may be due to gender stereotypes and consequent gender bias on the part of decision makers

8. Goals of this talk • Review experimental research that documents gender stereotyping effects at all stages of information processing • Document more complex, counterintuitive effects of gender stereotypes • Note that these effects can emerge without conscious intent, awareness, or ill will • Discuss possible solutions

9. A tour of gender stereotyping effects • Automatic gender associations • Encoding biases • Construal/memory for ambiguous information • Judgment • Attribution • Definitions of merit • Shifting evidentiary standards

10. Content of gender stereotypes • Women = Communal (Warm) • helpful, friendly, kind, sympathetic, interpersonally sensitive • Men = Agentic (Competent) • aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, self-reliant (Williams & Best, 1990; Deaux & Kite, 1993)

11. 1. We automatically associate these traits with gender categories (Rudman & Glick, 2001)

12. 2. Gender stereotypes lead to encoding bias • Seeing what we expect to see • Taking longer to see what we don’t expect

13. Imagine these behavior descriptions: • “Suzanne works relentlessly to solve difficult problems” • “William works relentlessly to solve difficult problems” • Agentic trait: Determination • “Jill encourages employees to approach her if a problem arises” • “Russell encourages employees to approach him if a problem arises” • Communal trait: Understanding • How quickly is the relevant trait inferred?

14. Respondents are slower to infer agentic traits from women’s agentic behavior(Scott & Brown, 2006)

15. 3. Stereotypes affect construal of information • Vague or ambiguous information is construed to be consistent with the stereotype

16. Jane/Bill administered medicine to the patient. • Jane/Bill, the nurse, administered medicine to the patient • Jane/Bill, the doctor, administered medicine to the patient • Elizabeth/Bob was not very surprised upon receiving her/his math SAT score. • Elizabeth/Bob was not very surprised upon receiving her lowmath SAT score • Elizabeth/Bob was not very surprised upon receiving his highmath SAT score (Dunning & Sherman, 1997)

17. Memory is stereotype consistent: • Jane the nurse, administered medicine to the patient • Bill, the doctor, administered medicine to the patient • Elizabeth was not very surprised upon receiving her lowmath SAT score • Bob was not very surprised upon receiving his highmath SAT score (Dunning & Sherman, 1997)

18. 4. Gender stereotypes affect judgments of individuals • We judge individual men and women consistently with group stereotypes (assimilation)

19. Biernat & Kobrynowicz (1997) • Participants review resume of male or female applicant • Job is masculine (“chief of staff”) or feminine (“executive secretary”) • Perceived competence/hireability assessed

20. Gender that fits the job is judged most competent

21. Evaluation of CVs (Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke, 1999) • Academic psychologists evaluate CV of biopsychologist Karen Miller/Brian Miller

22. 4b. Failure to recognize female expertise • Experts identified in group decision-making task based on actual individual performance • Group members then interact to reach decision Thomas-Hunt & Phillips (2004)

23. Peer judgments of expertise Women “experts” are judged less expert than men, and even less expert than women non-experts!

24. Actual influence in groups

25. Groups with male experts outperformed those with female experts • Why? Because their expertise was used .11 (.26) Expert Gender (0=F, 1=M) Team performance .56 .24 Influence of expert

26. 5. Double-bind for women • Women expected to be communal and non-agentic • Perception of competence requires agency • Women who display agency may be criticized

27. 5a. Backlash against self-promoting women (Rudman, 1998)

28. 5b. Evaluations of men and women who negotiate for higher salary/benefits (Bowles, Babcock, & Lei, 2007)

29. Use of self-promotion makes female employees less likeable (B= -.43) and less competent (B= -.22) • But makes male employees more likeable (B= +.16), and more competent (B= +.34)

30. 5c. Assumption that “successful” female managers are not communal (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007) • Rated desirability of a female or male “successful manager” as a boss

31. 6. Stereotypes affect attributions for performance • We may attribute stereotype-inconsistent information to temporary and/or situational causes

32. “What is skill for the male is luck for the female” (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974) • Participants asked to explain the successful performance of man or woman on “masculine” task

33. Attribution to ability (versus luck)

34. More recent attribution research Heilman & Haynes (2005) • Ps read about a successful work team (one male, one female) • Judgments of influence/competence of group members

35. Male given more credit for team success

36. 7. Stereotypes may affect definitions of merit • Emphasizing the importance of attributes a favored target possesses

37. Evaluation of male or female applicant for police chief • Qualifications • “Street smart” but not formally educated • Formally educated, but not “street smart” Uhlmann & Cohen (2005)

38. How important is formal education to being a police chief? Qualification is more important if the male has that qualification

39. All of these effects indicate subtle (or not so subtle) biases that lead to stereotypical perceptions of women and men

40. But sometimes stereotypes lead to contrast effects • Female targets are judged less dependent than males (Corneille et al., 2000) • Women are judged to be more agentic than men (Eagly & Steffen, 1984)

41. These contrast effects may also be driven by stereotypes

42. 8. Stereotypes activate shifting standards (Biernat, 2003; Biernat & Manis, 1994) • Stereotypes serve as standards against which we judge individual group members. • Standards shift when we judge members of different groups.

43. Based on stereotypes . . . • How tall is tall? • For men, 6’2”, for women, 5’9” • How aggressive is aggressive? • Standard is lower for women • How emotional is emotional? • Standard is lower for men

44. Implications • Identical behavior is judged differently depending on who does it • Identical judgments may mask very different underlying perceptions

45. Gender and judgments of financial success (Biernat et al., 1991) • Ps view 40 photos of M and F targets • Judge financial success in: • Common rule units ($ earned per year) or • Subjective units (1-7 unsuccessful-successful)

46. Financial success judgments

47. Standards may shift in the direction of stringency or leniency • Standards may be lower or higher for groups stereotyped as deficient on an attribute

48. Stephen Carter (1993) Reflections of an affirmative action baby • “Our parents’ advice was true: We really do have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good (as Whites)” (p. 58) • “(I am) somewhat skeptical that Black people of intellectual talent have a harder time than others in proving their worth. My own experience suggests quite the contrary, that like a flower blooming in winter, intellect is more readily noticed where it is not expected to be found” (p. 54)

49. Types of standards • Minimum: Standard to suspect that someone has an attribute; expectation • Confirmatory: Standard to confirm that someone has attribute • Minimum standards are lower but confirmatory standards are higher for groups stereotyped as deficient on attribute

50. Work-related competence standards: Women stereotyped as deficient (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997)