Research Article Analysis

Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J. & Cimpian, A. (2018). Evidence of Bias Against Girls and Women in
Contexts That Emphasize Intellectual Ability. American Psychologist, 73(9), 1139-1153
doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000427

Article Summary

The underrepresentation of women in various fields that prioritize intellect has been the
topic of major discussion. Researchers hypothesize that the main contributing factor of this
situation is the stereotypes held against women. The stereotypes against women are numerous
and baseless, and the stereotype utilized here is that women are intellectually inferior as
compared to men. This paper studies the present gender bias against women in the early levels
of the professional context and at the developmental stages of both men and women. Three
experiments were conducted, and all three found evidence of gender bias against women. These
biases impede the success of highly-skilled women in various male-dominated fields.

Introduction

The study aims to study whether there exists bias against women in terms of intellectual
ability, as women are still marginalized in fields that prioritize brilliance such as in science, arts
and humanities, even though women have been succeeding academically in both lower and
higher educational levels. This is highlighted by citing various studies on how women graduate
from college at higher rates than men and get better grades in school as compared to their male
peers. The term ‘gender bias’ is defined to suit the theme of the research, as when women who
are just as competent as men are treated differently due to their gender. The research objectives
are clearly stated, in which the authors express that it’s pertinent to understand why gender bias
exist against women in intellectual contexts as it can be concluded as one of the biggest reasons
for the dearth of women in intellectual fields. The significance of study is also emphasized, in
which the authors differentiate how past research have only studied the presence of gender bias
while hiring candidates for a job and this research aims to observe if gender bias is stronger at
the earlier levels of the process, in the referral of potential candidates. The authors proceed to
state that their research will specifically study two situations that judge and compare women and
men’s intellectual abilities, at the job referral stage and at the developmental stage.

1
 Literature Review

The authors start the literature review by noting that research regarding evidence of
gender discrimination against women in white-collar contexts goes as far as 20 years back and
proceeds to cite other studies that find sometimes women are favoured for in certain positions.
This is done as to emphasize that bias is heavily context-dependent. The authors complement the
research objectives by citing various present studies on gender bias against women in male-
dominated fields, the gender stereotypes faced by women by their family and friends, the mental
processes involved in making referrals and the gender stereotypes that exists even among young
children.
The authors express how previous studies have left unanswered questions which are in
need of clarification, such as how other individuals in male-dominated fields contribute to the
attrition of interest for women hoping to succeed in those fields. The experiments conducted by
the authors are complemented by cited research, such as the process of making a referral relies
on one’s memory that can be plagued by holding gender biases, leading to the unequal referrals
of male candidates as compared to female candidates. Gender biases present in kindergarten is
also explained and correlated to the authors experiment, in which the authors explain that gender
discrimination at this level may isolate girls from certain activities that could enable them to
develop the skills suited for success in male-dominated fields. The literature review is
comprehensive and helps the reader in further understanding the context of the study.

Methodology

The authors conducted three experiments, the first two studied the evidence of gender
bias in referring candidates for a job, with experiment two considering the ethnicity of the
participants. Experiment three studied the presence of gender bias among 5 to 7-year-old
children. Participants for experiment one and two were taken from online crowdsourcing
websites such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics Online Panels respectively.
Participants for experiment three were recruited from a small city in the United States, from a
database of families interested in participating in experimental studies. All participants were
from the United States.

2
 Experiment one asked participants to refer someone they know for a job. Participants,
who more than half was female and in their mid-30s, was asked to imagine that they were
working for a reputable company and needed a few people to fill positions in their company.
They were given job descriptions, participants in the experimental group were given descriptions
that prioritized intellectual ability while those in the control group were given descriptions that
prioritized the motivation of candidates. Participants were asked to pick their referral one by one
as it was a better measure for bias. After this process was done, participants were asked to
measure the intellectual differences between men and women through a questionnaire containing
relevant questions. This is as to measure if the participants’ referrals matched their belief of
gender bias.
Experiment two followed the same steps as experiment one, with the main difference
being the higher number and ethnic variation of participants. The only limitation of this
experiment was that the authors could not match the ethnic composition to be similar to the
U.S.A.’s, as to have a nationally accurate sample.
Experiment three’s respondents were 50% girls and mostly White. Children were asked
to play a game where they had to pick teammates for their group for an activity. Children in the
experimental condition were told that the game was for children who were really smart, while
children in the control condition were not told anything and was only asked to pick their
teammates. Participants were shown six pictures of children of different genders for them to
choose. Afterwards, children were given pictures of adult men and women and were asked which
person was smarter than the other. The only limitation of this experiment was that children tend
to show ingroup bias towards their own gender.
For data analysis, the authors used Bayesian Statistics, which was explained to be the
most appropriate for psychological experiments.

3
 Results

The data analysed was presented in bar graphs, which helped clarify the analysation by
seeing how the variables measured against one another. The authors also summarized the
objectives of each experiment before proceeding to analyse the data. Results for experiment one
was in line with the objective, as it was found that participants exhibited gender bias and was
less likely to refer female candidates for jobs requiring intellectual skill. It was also found that
participants who believed in stereotypes were less likely to refer women regardless of job
description. Results for experiment two coincided with experiment one, with the main finding
being White participants were less likely to refer women as compared to non-White participants.
A meta-analysis of results from experiments one and two was also conducted. Results for
experiment three showed that children held gender bias, even more for older children.
Considering intergroup bias, children were less likely to pick girls as their teammates in the later
rounds of the game. The authors also compared the results from all three experiments. The results
were clearly analysed and presented.

Discussions
The authors stated three ways the study makes theoretical contributions, such as the study
adds to the comprehension of factors involved in the marginalization of women in certain fields,
helps to understand the gender bias that exists in the professional world by examining the bias at
an early level of the recruitment process and the also adds to the findings regarding gender biases
that are present among children. Limitations of the study were also discussed, such as in
experiments one and two, there could be various other reasons that don’t stem from participants’
gender bias regarding their selection of referrals. This is described using alternative interpretation
such as participants may know more brilliant men than women.
The authors gave a few methods in combating gender bias, such as adopting a ‘growth
mindset’ when it comes to choosing candidates to prevent one’s stereotype regarding brilliance
from being in the way of choosing the right applicant. Directions for future work were given,
such as finding the amount of intellectual stereotype women face in a white-collar setting, how
gender bias correlates with ethnicity and the sturdiness of views of gender bias among children.
Overall, the authors clarified the contributions, limitations and directions for future research that
can be done regarding this study.

4
 Personal Opinion

This research is appropriate for the current social climate as interventions regarding
gender discrimination should immediately be made to further achieve gender equality. Women
should receive the same treatment as men and should not be put down by baseless stereotypes.
The results of this study confirm what has been known for decades, women are regularly seen as
inferior to men in terms of intellect. The author provides fresh insight by measuring this
stereotype at early levels of the professional world and proving that in some instances men
succeed at higher rates than women due to prevalent stereotypes that exist against women.
This journal article is relevant to other research regarding sexism as it provides insight
on why women exit male-dominated industries at high rates and why women are disinterested to
take up study in male-dominated fields such as STEM fields in pursuing their higher education.