↓ Skip to main content

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 86,134)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1210 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2905 Mendeley
citeulike
29 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2012
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1211286109
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, J. Handelsman

Abstract

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants' preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4,146 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,905 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 105 4%
United Kingdom 30 1%
Canada 22 <1%
Germany 16 <1%
Australia 8 <1%
Switzerland 8 <1%
France 8 <1%
Denmark 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Other 29 <1%
Unknown 2671 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 748 26%
Researcher 449 15%
Student > Bachelor 414 14%
Student > Master 325 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 205 7%
Other 583 20%
Unknown 181 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 603 21%
Psychology 515 18%
Social Sciences 376 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 141 5%
Environmental Science 108 4%
Other 853 29%
Unknown 309 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5133. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2020.
All research outputs
#253
of 15,893,658 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#11
of 86,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1
of 135,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#1
of 889 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,893,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 86,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 889 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.