Disguised and implicit measures confirm no overall negative evaluation of women

Evidence

Evidence from nonobvious methodologies dispels concerns that respondents’ positive evaluations of women are contaminated by social desirability or political correctness. Implicit attitudinal measures, such as the Implicit Association Test, assess the strength of association between concepts and positive or negative evaluation without participant awareness (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Research using this method has also obtained more positive evaluation of women than men (Rudman, ch. 7 this volume). Another nonobvious method of assessing gender prejudice involves disguising the purpose of participants’ evaluations. In the Goldberg Paradigm (1968), participants evaluate a product – such as an article or a résumé – ascribed to a person who is identified by a male or female first name. Participants are unaware that the purpose is to detect gender prejudice because they receive only one set of materials in the typical betweensubjects design. In a meta-analysis of 123 such studies, only a very slight bias against women was detected when the findings were summarized across evaluations of many types of materials (Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989), and this bias disappears when potential confounding factors (such as associations with specific male and female names; Kasof, 1993) are considered. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 185

Evidence from nonobvious methodologies dispels concerns that respondents’ positive evaluations of women are contaminated by social desirability or political correctness. Implicit attitudinal measures, such as the Implicit Association Test, assess the strength of association between concepts and positive or negative evaluation without participant awareness (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Research using this method has also obtained more positive evaluation of women than men (Rudman, ch. 7 this volume). … In a meta-analysis of 123 such studies, only a very slight bias against women was detected when the findings were summarized across evaluations of many types of materials (Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989), and this bias disappears when potential confounding factors (such as associations with specific male and female names; Kasof, 1993) are considered. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 185

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the Goldberg Paradigm as a research method that hides the purpose of detecting gender bias.
• QUESTION: The 123-study meta-analysis finding only slight female derogation counters strong intuition — worth chasing the original Swim 1989 paper for effect sizes by material type.
• XREF: This is core empirical grounding contradicting textbook prejudice definitions — connects to the Allport reassessment and contact-theory vault claims.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 185