No abstract

People are often reluctant to speak out publicly as allies to marginalized groups. We conducted three preregistered studies examining whether pluralistic ignorance (Miller & McFarland, 1991;Prentice, 2007;Prentice & Miller, 1993) inhibits allyship. We first hypothesized that, if men rarely enact allyship toward women (e.g., in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] fields), people will underestimate men's beliefs that sexism is problematic. Second, these misperceptions might then predict men's (and women's) own inaction, despite their private beliefs about gender bias. Additionally, men with higher masculinity concerns might be particularly inhibited from enacting allyship by their belief that other men are unconcerned with gender bias. All three studies yielded evidence that men and women underestimate men's privately expressed concerns about gender bias in STEM contexts. In correlational analyses, Studies 1 and 2 also revealed that among men high in precarious masculinity concerns, the belief that other men do not see bias as a problem predicted lower allyship intentions, controlling for their own beliefs about gender bias. Although experimentally correcting these beliefs with data changed perceptions (Studies 2 and 3), this was insufficient to increase allyship. Rather, in an ecologically valid behavioral paradigm (Study 3), allyship behavior was elevated when participants observed others confronting versus not confronting sexism. These findings suggest that perceptions of men's average beliefs inhibit allyship intentions; however, merely correcting these misperceptions might not be enough to motivate actual confrontation. We discuss the implications of these findings for a pluralistic ignorance account of allyship inhibition and for practical interventions aimed at promoting allyship.

In this study, we asked participants to "describe their sexual orientation" in an open-ended measure of self-generated sexual orientation. The question was included as part of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 18,261) 2013/2014 wave, a national probability survey conducted shortly after the first legal same-sex marriages in New Zealand. We present a two-level classification scheme to address questions about the prevalence of, and demographic differences between, sexual orientations. At the most detailed level of the coding scheme, 49 unique categories were generated by participant responses. Of those who responded with the following, significantly more were women: bisexual (2.1 % of women, compared to 1.5 % of men), bicurious (0.7 % of women, 0.4 % of men), and asexual (0.4 % of women and less than 0.1 % of men). However, significantly fewer women than men reported being lesbian or gay (1.8 % of women, compared to 3.5 % of men). Those openly identifying as bicurious, bisexual, or lesbian/gay were significantly younger than those with a heterosexual orientation. This study shows diversity in the terms used in self-generated sexual orientations, and provides up-to-date gender, age, and prevalence estimates for the New Zealand population. Finally, results reveal that a substantial minority of participants may not have understood the question about sexual orientation.

Studies on gender disparity in academia generate constructive discussions to promote equality. In a recently published study, AlShebli et al. 2020 analyzed the role of informal mentorship in supporting early-career scientists and how gender may shape scientific careers. Besides presenting methodological flaws, the study culminates in the authors' conclusion that mentoring quality is determined by the mentor's gender, suggesting that female protégés reap more benefits when mentored by males rather than equally-impactful females. Despite acknowledging that possible causal factors were not considered in their analyses, they attest that the success of female scientists' careers relies on opposite-gender mentorships in terms of publication and impact. Although the authors state that these findings add a new perspective to the policy debate on the best ways to elevate the women in science, their conclusions reinforce the traditional patriarchal, biased scientific structure that stimulates a poorly diversified hierarchical chain in STEM. Here we highlight the study's methodological weaknesses and major issues that must be addressed to avoid the perpetuation of gender disparity in science.

No abstract