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

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.

The gender gap in political psychology

“…Regarding the topics of the research, Gender, Identity, Culture and Language, and Religion, also maybe Ethnicity and Political Identity, are all topics that in eyes of both other psychologists and laypeople are perceived as less rigorous, mainstream, and objective than research in areas of psychology, and the researchers engaged with this type of research on identity or “me-search” ( Rios and Roth, 2020 ) are seen as more subjective and less intelligent ( Rios and Roth, 2020 ; Brown et al, 2022 ).…”

Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

“…The current system of centering White experience also affects the composition of participant samples (Avery et al, 2022;Henrich et al, 2010), the identities of the researchers who conduct and publish the findings of such research (Roberts et al, 2020), and the research topics pursued and published (Avery et al, 2022;Kozlowski et al, 2022;Settles et al, 2021;Syed et al, 2018). The dominance of the majority White perspective also shapes what counts as "good" science, such that studies of racism, sexism, or group disparities, and their impact on psychology, are deemed to be ideologically motivated rather than based on high-quality, concrete, and systematic evidence (e.g., Brown et al, 2022;Handley et al, 2015;Roberts, 2022). Consequently, the accepted values and practices in science can serve as roadblocks and barriers to the inclusion and advancement of minoritized scholars working on topics that are not prioritized by the majority White perspective.…”

Changing the Culture of Peer Review for a More Inclusive and Equitable Psychological Science

“…The current system of centering White experience also affects the composition of participant samples (Avery et al, 2022;Henrich et al, 2010), the identities of the researchers who conduct and publish the findings of such research (Roberts et al, 2020), and the research topics pursued and published (Avery et al, 2021;Kozlowski et al, 2022;Settles et al, 2021;Syed et al, 2018). The dominance of the majority White perspective also shapes what counts as "good" science, such that studies of racism, sexism, or group disparities, and their impact on psychology, are deemed to be ideologically motivated rather than based on high-quality, concrete, and systematic evidence (e.g., Brown et al 2022;Handley et al, 2015;Roberts, 2022). Consequently, the accepted values and practices in science can serve as roadblocks and barriers to the inclusion and advancement of minoritized scholars working on topics that are not prioritized by the majority White perspective.…”