Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 3:13:796069.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.796069. eCollection 2022.

"Broad" Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals

Affiliations

"Broad" Impact: Perceptions of Sex/Gender-Related Psychology Journals

Elizabeth R Brown et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: androcentrism; gender; perceptions of sex/gender research; psychological research; sexism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Students reactions toward sex/gender-related versus other-specialty and men-related versus other-specialty psychology publications (Studies 1 and 2). Error bars represent standard errors. Favorability was rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much); quality was rated on scales ranging from 5th (lowest) to 99th (highest); subscription maintenance recommendations were made on scales ranging from 0% (no chance) to 100% (definitely).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altmetric (2018). What are Altmetrics?. London: Altmetric.
    1. American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies (2014). How is the gender composition of faculty in graduate psychology departments changing? News APA’s Center Workforce Stud. 45:11.
    1. American Psychological Association [APA] (2006). Women in the American Psychological Association: 2006. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    1. Bailey A. H., LaFrance M. (2016). Who counts as human? Antecedents to androcentric behavior. Sex Roles 76 682–693. 10.1007/s11199-016-0648-4 - DOI
    1. Bailey A. H., LaFrance M., Dovidio J. (2019). Is man the measure of all things? A social cognitive account of androcentrism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23 307–331. 10.1177/1088868318782848 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources