CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,150Career Development and DiversityGender Diversity and InequalityNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Open access
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., Dovidio, John F., Brescoll, Victoria L., Graham, Mark J., Handelsman, Jo·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1211286109PMC PMC3478626
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Faculty members of both genders have been shown to have unconscious biases against women in science, including rating women less deserving of mentoring than men with the same academic credentials.

    “Faculty members of both genders have been shown to have unconscious biases against women in science, including rating women less deserving of mentoring than men with the same academic credentials (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).”

    From Race and Gender Differences in Undergraduate Research Mentoring Structures and Research Outcomes (2017) · cites this paper as Moss-Racusin et al., 2012

    The Discussion reports that male and female faculty offered less career mentoring to a female applicant than to an identical male applicant. It describes the bias as *likely* unintentional, rather than demonstrating that it was unconscious; that part of the claim is stronger than the paper's finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Research on gender attitudes typically shows a preference for women over men, which conflicts with the commonly observed preference for men over women in hiring decisions.

    “Research on gender attitudes typically shows a preference for women over men (Eagly & Mladinic 1989), which conflicts with the commonly observed preference for men over women in hiring decisions (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al. 2012).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Moss-Racusin et al. 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]6. Halpern DF, et al. (2007) The science of gender differences in science and mathe- matics. Psychol Sci 8(1):1-51.
  2. [17]17. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL (2004) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed Zanna MP (Elsevier, New York), pp 1-51.
  3. [47]47. Holbrook AL, Krosnick JA, Pfent A (2007) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodol- ogy, eds Lepkowski JM, et al. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken), pp 499-528.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology,
  • Department of Psychology,
  • Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-09-17
Volume
109
Issue
41
Pages
16474-16479
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1211286109
PMC
PMC3478626
OpenAlex
W2170508806
Cited by
3,150
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 137 · 2025: 207 · 2024: 208 · 2023: 235 · 2022: 280 · 2021: 281 · 2020: 385 · 2019: 331 · 2018: 256 · 2017: 252 · 2016: 156 · 2015: 184 · 2014: 152 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 8
FWCI
345.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
gender bias, science faculty, female students, name-based discrimination, hiring decisions, perceived competence, starting salaries, career mentoring, double-blind study, women in science
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Faculty, Female, Humans, Male, Personnel Selection, Regression Analysis, Salaries and Fringe Benefits, Science, Sex Factors, Students, Laboratory Personnel, Sexism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review