CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Gender Studies in LanguageGender and Feminist StudiesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How gender determines the way we speak about professionals

Open access
Atir, Stav, Ferguson, Melissa J.·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1805284115PMC PMC6048538
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Across eight studies combining archival and experimental methods, we report evidence for a gender bias in how people speak about professionals. Men and women were, on average across studies, more than twice as likely to describe a male (vs. female) professional by surname in domains, such as science, literature, and politics. We find that this simple difference in reference affects judgments of eminence, with participants judging those professionals described by surname as more eminent and 14% more deserving of a career award. This gender bias may contribute to the gender gap in perceived eminence as well as in actual recognition and may partially explain the persistent state of women’s underrepresentation in high-status fields, including science, technology, engineering, and math.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1805284115

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. BD Proctor, JL Semega, MA Kollar Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2016).
  2. CH Mo, The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Polit Behav 37, 357–395 (2015). · DOI
  3. BA Nosek, , National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 10593–10597 (2009). · DOI
  4. CA Moss-Racusin, JF Dovidio, VL Brescoll, MJ Graham, J Handelsman, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 16474–16479 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  5. JE Uscinski, LJ Goren, What’s in a name? Coverage of senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 democratic primary. Polit Res Q 64, 884–896 (2011). · DOI
  6. MA Messner, MC Duncan, K Jensen, Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gend Soc 7, 121–137 (1993). · DOI
  7. C Halbert, M Latimer, “Battling” gendered language: An analysis of the language used by sports commentators in a televised coed tennis competition. Sociol Sport J 11, 298–308 (1994). · DOI
  8. MA Cejka, AH Eagly, Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25, 413–423 (1999). · DOI
  9. AJ Cuddy, ST Fiske, P Glick, Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 40, 61–149 (2008). · DOI
  10. T Langford, NJ MacKinnon, The affective bases for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada. Soc Psychol Q 63, 34–48 (2000). · DOI
  11. G Cowan, JH Kasen, Form of reference: Sex differences in letters of recommendation. J Pers Soc Psychol 46, 636–645 (1974). · DOI
  12. JA Files, , Speaker introductions at internal medicine grand rounds: Forms of address reveal gender bias. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 26, 413–419 (2017). · DOI
  13. HA Takiff, DT Sanchez, TL Stewart, What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychol Women Q 25, 134–144 (2001). · DOI
  14. S Vazire, Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature 547, 7 (2017). · DOI
  15. P Azoulay, T Stuart, Y Wang, Matthew: Effect or fable? Manage Sci 60, 92–109 (2013). · DOI
  16. J Gush, A Jaffe, V Larsen, A Laws, The effect of public funding on research output: The New Zealand Marsden Fund. New Zeal Econ Pap 51, 1–22 (2017).
  17. RS Tol, The Matthew effect defined and tested for the 100 most prolific economists. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 60, 420–426 (2009). · DOI
  18. R Costas, M Bordons, TN Van Leeuwen, AF Van Raan, Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 60, 740–753 (2009). · DOI
  19. T Bol, M de Vaan, A van de Rijt, The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115, 4887–4890 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  20. AR McConnell, RH Fazio, Women as men and people: Effects of gender-marked language. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22, 1004–1013 (1996). · DOI
  21. C Goldin, M Shim, Making a name: Women’s surnames at marriage and beyond. J Econ Perspect 18, 143–160 (2004). · DOI
  22. MC Hamilton, Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = male, male = people. Psychol Women Q 15, 393–402 (1991). · DOI · Paper page
  23. DT Miller, B Taylor, ML Buck, Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? J Pers Soc Psychol 61, 5–12 (1991). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Atir, S., & Ferguson, M. J.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-06-25
Volume
115
Issue
28
Pages
7278-7283
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1805284115
PMC
PMC6048538
OpenAlex
W2811057653
Cited by
56
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
10.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 183 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
gender bias, professional naming, gender inequality in science, women in STEM, media coverage of politicians
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sex Characteristics, Social Behavior, Speech, 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