What makes professors appear credible: The effect of demographic characteristics and ideological beliefs.

Abstract

Five studies are conducted to examine how ideology and perceptions regarding gender, race, caste, and affiliation status affect how individuals judge researchers' credibility. Support is found for predictions that individuals judge researcher credibility according to their egalitarian or elitist ideologies and according to status cues including race, gender, caste, and university affiliation. Egalitarians evaluate low-status researchers as more credible than high-status researchers. Elitists show the opposite pattern. Credibility judgments affect whether individuals will interpret subsequent ambiguous events in accordance with the researcher's findings. Effects of diffuse status cues and ideological beliefs may be mitigated when specific status cues are presented to override stereotypes. (PsycINFO Database Record

When Organizational Justice Enactment Is a Zero-Sum Game: A Trade-Offs and Self-Concept Maintenance Perspective

“…Elitists, naturally predisposed to value status and social order, tend to show preference and award higher credibility to high-, rather than a low-status professor. Their egalitarian counterparts in turn evaluate low-status professors as more credible that those of high-status (Zhu et al, 2016). Similarly, a recent meta-analysis suggested the presence of biases in broader ideologies.…”

Dual pathways to bias: Evaluators’ ideology and ressentiment independently predict racial discrimination in hiring contexts.

“…These contradictory findings suggest theoretical models predicting discrimination from target demographics alone will be underspecified. Other factors, such as the evaluators’ motives, may influence whether they will demonstrate partiality toward or against racial minorities (Zhu et al, 2016). We propose evaluators’ ideological commitments are one source of racial biases.…”

Bridging the gap between real estate research and professional practice in Nigeria

“…The perception of potential research users of the credibility of data employed (Johnston and Warkentin, 2010), status and reputation of researchers and their institution (Zhu et al, 2016); nature of research funding and commercial interest (Lacasse and Leo, 2011) are other factors that have been found to have a significant impact on the adoption of research findings. Moreover, according to Zhu et al (2016), ideology and perceptions regarding gender, race and caste can affect how individuals judge researchers' credibility.…”

“…The perception of potential research users of the credibility of data employed (Johnston and Warkentin, 2010), status and reputation of researchers and their institution (Zhu et al, 2016); nature of research funding and commercial interest (Lacasse and Leo, 2011) are other factors that have been found to have a significant impact on the adoption of research findings. Moreover, according to Zhu et al (2016), ideology and perceptions regarding gender, race and caste can affect how individuals judge researchers' credibility. Although it could be argued that perceptions are sometimes irrational and untenable (Barr ıa, 2017), but in reality, they subtly influence how potential users rate the credibility of research outputs, and consequently, on adoption and implementation research findings (Bauer et al, 2005;Yousafzai et al, 2010;Southey, 2011).…”