Brown Elizabeth R, Smith Jessi L, Rossmann Doralyn
Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States.
Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, United States.
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 3;13:796069. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.796069. eCollection 2022.
Because men are overrepresented within positions of power, men are perceived as the default in academia (androcentrism). Androcentric bias emerges whereby research by men and/or dominated by men is perceived as higher quality and gains more attention. We examined if these androcentric biases materialize within fields that study bias (psychology). How do individuals in close contact with psychology view psychology research outlets (i.e., journals) with titles including the words women, gender, sex, or feminism (sex/gender-related) or contain the words men or masculinity (men-related; Study 1) versus psychology journals that publish other-specialized research, and do these perceptions differ in the general public? While the men-related journal was less meritorious than its other-specialty journal, evidence emerged supporting androcentric bias such that the men-related journal was more favorable than the other sex/gender-related journals (Study 1). Further, undergraduate men taking psychology classes rated sex/gender-related versus other-specialty journals as less favorable, were less likely to recommend subscription (Studies 1-2), and rated the journals as lower quality (Study 2 only). Low endorsement of feminist ideology was associated with less support for sex/gender-related journals versus matched other-specialty journals (Studies 1-2). Decreased subscription recommendations for sex/gender-related journals (and the men-related journal) were mediated by decreased favorability and quality beliefs, especially for men (for the sex/gender-related journals) and those low in feminist ideology (Studies 1-2). However, we found possible androcentric-interest within the public sphere. The public reach of articles (as determined by Altmetrics) published in sex/gender-related was greater than other-specialty journals (Study 3). The consequences of these differential perceptions for students versus the public and the impact on women's advancement in social science and psychological science are discussed.
由于男性在权力职位中占比过高，在学术界男性被视为默认的中心（男性中心主义）。由此出现了男性中心偏见，即男性主导的研究被认为质量更高，也更受关注。我们研究了这些男性中心偏见是否在研究偏见的领域（心理学）中出现。与心理学密切相关的个体如何看待标题中包含女性、性别、性或女权主义等词汇（与性/性别相关）或包含男性或男性气质等词汇（与男性相关；研究1）的心理学研究期刊，与发表其他专业研究的心理学期刊相比如何，以及这些认知在普通公众中是否存在差异？虽然与男性相关的期刊不如其他专业期刊有价值，但有证据支持男性中心偏见，即与男性相关的期刊比其他与性/性别相关的期刊更受青睐（研究1）。此外，选修心理学课程的本科男生认为与性/性别相关的期刊不如其他专业期刊，不太可能推荐订阅（研究1 - 2），并认为这些期刊质量较低（仅研究2）。对女权主义意识形态的低认同与对与性/性别相关期刊而非匹配的其他专业期刊的支持较少有关（研究1 - 2）。对与性/性别相关期刊（以及与男性相关的期刊）订阅推荐的减少是由好感度和质量信念的降低介导的，尤其是对于男性（对于与性/性别相关的期刊）和女权主义意识形态较低的人（研究1 - 2）。然而，我们在公共领域发现了可能的男性中心兴趣。发表在与性/性别相关期刊上的文章的公众影响力（由Altmetrics确定）大于其他专业期刊（研究3）。讨论了这些不同认知对学生和公众的影响以及对女性在社会科学和心理科学领域进步的影响。
