People react more positively to female- than to male-favoring sex differences: A direct replication of a counterintuitive finding

The harm hypothesis: How perceived harm to women shapes reactions to research on sex differences

Past research suggests that reactions to research on sex differences are often less positive when the findings put men in a better light than women, especially when the lead researcher is a man. The factors underlying this effect, however, are not yet fully understood. The present study aimed to provide the first experimental test of the hypothesis that the key variable is perceived harm to women. Participants (214 men and 219 women) evaluated a bogus popular-science article reporting fictional research finding either a female- or a male-favouring sex difference in intelligence, attributed to either a female or a male lead researcher. To examine the effects of perceived harm, the introduction to the task highlighted either the potential benefits or potential drawbacks of sex-differences research in general. Consistent with past research, participants reacted less positively to the male-favouring difference, especially for male-led research. Consistent with the harm hypothesis, the effect was stronger after highlighting the potential drawbacks of sex-differences research than after highlighting the potential benefits. Our findings suggest that perceptions of harm to women underpin the aversion to male-favouring findings.

Reactions to research on sex differences: Effect of sex favoured, researcher sex, and importance of sex-difference domain

Two studies (total N = 778) looked at (1) how people react to research finding a sex difference depending on whether the research puts men or women in a better light and (2) how well people can predict the average man and average woman's reactions. Participants read a fictional popular-science article about fictional research finding either a male- or a female-favouring sex difference. The research was credited to either a male or a female lead researcher. In both studies, both sexes reacted less positively to differences favouring males; in contrast to our earlier research, however, the effect was larger among female participants. Contrary to a widespread expectation, participants did not react less positively to research led by a female. Participants did react less positively, though, to research led by a male when the research reported a male-favouring difference in a highly valued trait. Participants judged male-favouring research to be lower in quality than female-favouring research, apparently in large part because they saw the former as more harmful. In both studies, participants predicted that the average man and woman would exhibit substantial own-sex favouritism, with both sexes predicting more own-sex favouritism from the other sex than the other sex predicted from itself. In making these predictions, participants overestimated women's own-sex favouritism, and got the direction of the effect wrong for men. A greater understanding of the tendency to overestimate gender-ingroup bias could help quell antagonisms between the sexes.