Joan McKay Versus John McKay: Do Gender Stereotypes Bias Evaluations?

Janet Swim, Eugene Borgida, Geoffrey M Maruyama, David G. Myers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

  • 183 Citations

Abstract

Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors (e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T. McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows that the average difference between ratings of men and women is negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous, the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the inconsistency of findings are discussed.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages409-429
Number of pages21
JournalPsychological Bulletin
Volume105
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1989

Fingerprint

Sexism
Research
Publications
Meta-Analysis

Cite this

Joan McKay Versus John McKay : Do Gender Stereotypes Bias Evaluations? / Swim, Janet; Borgida, Eugene; Maruyama, Geoffrey M; Myers, David G.

In: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105, No. 3, 01.01.1989, p. 409-429.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{6d070d607da04b00a181ccf0faa534ec,
title = "Joan McKay Versus John McKay: Do Gender Stereotypes Bias Evaluations?",
abstract = "Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors (e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T. McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows that the average difference between ratings of men and women is negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous, the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the inconsistency of findings are discussed.",
author = "Janet Swim and Eugene Borgida and Maruyama, {Geoffrey M} and Myers, {David G.}",
year = "1989",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "409--429",
journal = "Psychological Bulletin",
issn = "0033-2909",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Joan McKay Versus John McKay

T2 - Psychological Bulletin

AU - Swim, Janet

AU - Borgida, Eugene

AU - Maruyama, Geoffrey M

AU - Myers, David G.

PY - 1989/1/1

Y1 - 1989/1/1

N2 - Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors (e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T. McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows that the average difference between ratings of men and women is negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous, the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the inconsistency of findings are discussed.

AB - Examines research using a classic, influential experiment conducted by Goldberg (1968), showing that women were likely to rate male authors (e.g., John T. McKay) more favorably than female authors (e.g., Joan T. McKay) of identical articles. Although replications of this study have been inconclusive, Goldberg's research is still frequently cited as demonstrating an evaluative bias against women. A quantitative meta-analysis of research using Goldberg's experimental paradigm shows that the average difference between ratings of men and women is negligible. Furthermore, although the effect sizes are not homogeneous, the difference remains negligible when other factors such as sex of subject or year of publication are taken into consideration. Several explanations for the heterogeneity of effect sizes and the inconsistency of findings are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001693309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001693309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409

DO - 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409

M3 - Review article

VL - 105

SP - 409

EP - 429

JO - Psychological Bulletin

JF - Psychological Bulletin

SN - 0033-2909

IS - 3

ER -