Is “me-search” necessarily less rigorous research? Social and personality psychologists’ stereotypes of the psychology of religion

Rios, Kimberly; Roth, Zachary C.

doi:10.1080/15298868.2019.1690035

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research should address whether these decreased favorability and quality perceptions occurred because it is assumed that the researchers are women, the participants are women, or because the findings are assumed to be pro-woman or feminist. If the researchers are assumed to be women they might be subject to stereotypes that researchers are engaging in “me-search” ( Rios and Roth, 2020 ) or that women are scientifically less competent ( Moss-Racusin et al, 2012 ). If participants are assumed to be women or if the findings are assumed to be pro-woman/feminist the findings might be subject to the belief that the results are not broadly generalizable (which would be further evidence of androcentric bias).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite progress in gender representation, women in psychology remain underrepresented on first author publications in top journals ( Brown and Goh, 2016 ), in awards received by divisions ( Eagly and Riger, 2014 ; Brown and Goh, 2016 ), in eminence ( Diener et al, 2014 ; Eagly and Miller, 2016 ), and in tenure-track positions (40.6% in 2010–2011; Oklahoma State University [OSU], 2011 ; see American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies, 2014 ). Further, research on the psychology of gender is often perceived by personality and/or social psychology researchers as less rigorous and mainstream than other subfields (i.e., attitudes and persuasion; judgment and decision making), and researchers who pursue research on the psychology of gender are stereotyped as being “female” ( Rios and Roth, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of importance, recent survey data (e.g., Rios & Roth, 2020) support these real-world examples, in that they reveal perceptions of gender-related research as less rigorous and objective than work on other topics. For example, social and personality psychologists perceived researchers studying the psychology of gender as likely to be female, noncisgender, and subjective (and less likely to be male, and intelligent) relative to researchers studying other topics within social psychology (e.g., judgment and decision making).…”

Section: Misconception 2: Psychology Of Gender Is Particularly Underm...mentioning

confidence: 96%

Psychology of gender: Addressing misconceptions and setting goals for the field.

Moss‐Racusin¹

2021

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an active interdisciplinary subfield, the psychology of gender has made major contributions to social psychology, and to psychological science more broadly. And yet, it has often been viewed as a special-interest area producing less rigorous work than other subfields. Such unduly negative perceptions may undermine the extent to which developments in gender-related scholarship ultimately contribute to broader scientific and social advances. The current work seeks to address common misconceptions about the psychology of gender, both by highlighting impactful contributions from existing work and identifying opportunities for further research. To do so, it discusses three specific misconceptions that may distort the assessment (and ultimately limit the impact) of work in this field. It also presents three underlying goals for future programs of gender-related scholarship. It does so in service of the broader goal of extending the robust body of existing research into new generations of gender science that are rigorous, inclusive, impactful, and can serve as the foundation for both scientific and social progress. Public Significance StatementDespite the scientific and societal importance of studying gender, the psychology of gender has often been viewed as a special-interest area generating less rigorous work than other subfields. This article debunks three specific misconceptions of the field and outlines three major goals for future scholarship in this area, with the broader aim of promoting more robust engagement with psychological gender science and the extent to which it can contribute to scientific and social advances.

show abstract

“…Scholars have noted that prejudice toward SRR may manifest as agreement with stereotypes that SRR is biased, impartial, and selfish (Appleby & Appleby, 2006;Gardner et al, 2017;Sumerau, 2016). These stereotypes, if adopted, may lead scientists to question the credibility, trustworthiness, and authority of their colleagues who conduct SRR (Altenmüller et al, 2021;Rios & Roth, 2020), which may result in adverse professional repercussions (e.g., rejection from graduate school, job, promotion) and even workplace bullying (Harris et al, 2020). In clinical psychology, widely used graduate application resources advise applicants to avoid disclosing personal connections to mental health difficulties (see Devendorf, 2020b, for review), as applicants may be viewed as "unstable" and "unable to function" (e.g., Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 2019, p. 4).…”

Section: What Stereotypes Are Associated With Self-relevant Research?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Devendorf¹,

Victor²,

Rottenberg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers often have personal experiences that motivate engagement with a research topic. We performed the first systematic investigation of self-relevant research (SRR; “me-search”) among psychologists. The prevalence of SRR and attitudes towards SRRers were examined in a representative North American sample (N = 1,778) of faculty, graduate students, and others affiliated with accredited doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. Over half of participants had engaged in SRR. When judging experimentally manipulated vignettes, those who did not engage in SRR made more stigmatizing judgements of SRR and SRR disclosure than those who engaged in SRR. Psychologists and trainees had more negative attitudes towards SRR on mental health topics (suicide, depression, schizophrenia) than physical health topics (cancer). We discuss the implications of negative evaluations of SRR and mental illness on the health of applied psychology.

show abstract

Is “me-search” necessarily less rigorous research? Social and personality psychologists’ stereotypes of the psychology of religion

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Psychology of gender: Addressing misconceptions and setting goals for the field.

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About