Pro-female and anti-male biases are more influential than race and other factors in Implicit Association Tests

big_meats93 · 2023-03-28T10:59:21+00:00

The pool group of participants "were from nearly 6,000 individuals", and multiple studies on different groups within that pool using slightly different tactics were done. They repeatedly came up with results that indicated, over other demographic traits - race, class, age - people are "implicitly" biased with gender the most - specifically, negatively towards males, and positively towards females.

Many today would assume based on the reality presented in our media that inclinations based on or against race is in fact the most strong bias people hold, and that women would follow in close second in terms of being most biased against.

Implicit bias tests are supposed to measure "unconscious attitudes" (from the article) - "Implicit Association Tests (IATs) are a type of psychological tool designed to measure implicit biases (unconscious attitudes) that people may hold towards certain social groups or concepts. IATs typically involve participants quickly categorizing stimuli, such as words or images, into different categories using a computer keyboard or mouse. The basic idea behind the test is that people will be faster and more accurate when categorizing stimuli that are more closely associated in their minds, compared to stimuli that are less closely associated."

There are some arguments about the validity of these tests (wikipedia), but it seems generally (as to be expected) folks don't like them when they don't indicate what they want to believe about the population's biases- and do like them when they do. A short google search reveals other studies using the tests have previously indicated other factors as being more prevalent in people's biases. The novelty of this particular study is that it indicated gender and specifically men were the most biased against (interestingly, it also highlighted a bias against "lower class" (poor) people, which I also don't see talked about much elsewhere).

What I don't recall seeing in the article is speculation as to why this particular study revealed this bias, and other previous ones using IATs hadn't. Were the others simply not even considering it as a possibility, and not testing for it? Maybe someone can answer this.

I tried posting this earlier here as a link to a then ongoing reddit thread on r/science, which reached about 3.5k views and then was taken down by the mods. There was some conflict with anti-brigading rules here and I went to sleep for a while. Anyways,

It was generating some conversation there in the comments, with a lot being removed. Then it was taken down- the eventual comment left by mods at r/science say it was taken down because the research is more than 6 months old. I personally can't find anything indicating that. The journal article linked to on the American Psychological Association's website says it's not publicly available until May, and the study itself seems to me to be dated 2023 (and we are still only in March).

Connor, P., Weeks, M., Glaser, J., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2023). Intersectional implicit bias: Evidence for asymmetrically compounding bias and the predominance of target gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(1), 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000314

Just thought it was interesting. Threads like that in real time are a way to see these kinds of biases play out in the comments (and what even eventually happens to the thread- seems you can't even talk about this stuff). You can see it in "View discussion in other 4 communities" under this post. Apparently it had also been posted and removed before, nobody seems to have challenged the over 6 month old thing either time (can you even challenge the almighty reddit mods or respond to those comments?). Maybe I'm wrong though, anyone want to correct me? Doesn't seem over 6 months old...

What do ya'll think? Seems some of the men in the comments of that thread were reacting like, "no, duh", and I'm sure that's how this article would probably make many of you feel. Thought I should post it anyways.

In the article, it reads:

When I discuss this work with people, their reaction is often to ask if others within the academic community have responded negatively to the results,” Connor added. “And I understand the question, because ever since I started doing this work, I have felt some trepidation about sharing the results. But I have to say that virtually everyone, from editors, to peer reviewers, to academic audiences, has been genuinely receptive and willing to engage thoughtfully with these data, even if they might be surprising or run counter to some people’s priors. It has been a very welcome and pleasant surprise.”

So apparently- at least in according to this article- the consciousness is changing somewhat in the scientific and academic community. Not so on r/science or reddit at large.

edits: articulation

az226 · 2023-03-28T17:37:46+00:00

Lol. All possible explanations of the anti-male bias except the prevailing sentiment man bad woman good/punching up, etc.

vtj · 2023-03-28T20:16:10+00:00

Here's a freely accessible preprint for those who can't get through the publisher paywall. I haven't read it yet, but based on the abstract, it seems to mostly corroborate this older result (also freely available) which also used the (somewhat controversial) implicit association technique.

Jaffacakes-and-Jesus · 2023-03-28T17:33:39+00:00

Hmmmm I've heard some bad things about the IAT, not sure we can trust this https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html&ved=2ahUKEwjT_orzk__9AhWN_rsIHbGnAYEQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3v2kn6YGW_h97GFS1JdMsm

sorebum405 · 2023-03-29T04:06:31+00:00

The IAT is not a valid test there is already ample evidence of pro-female bias besides the IAT test.

Comments