Gender Studies

Here are some interesting findings from a study on gender & creativity showing that stereotypes affect how we assess creativity and whom we deem as being creative. People tend to associate creativity with independence, risk-taking, and self-confidence (stereotypically masculine traits). The question is whether those traits truly lead to what it takes to find creative solutions at work. Researchers Joohyung (Jenny) Kim and team noted that in prior studies on creativity people tend to value novelty over usefulness, although both are needed for an idea to be creative. By over-emphasizing novelty, people tend to see creativity as needing risk taking. And by under-valuing usefulness, people tend to overlook the need for empathy. They also noted that in general, men are rated as more creative than women. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of studies on gender and creativity. They discovered that indeed, men who were deemed as creative tended to score higher in risk taking while creative women, in empathy. While both traits were associated with creativity, empathetic tendency had a higher explanatory factor. Thus, they concluded that “empathy can be a more powerful driver of creativity than risk-taking, especially when the usefulness of ideas is taken into account.” Thus, a stereotypical view of creativity may cause us to undervalue what it truly takes to lead to creative solutions and to inadvertently reinforce gender biases in who is seen as creative. What does this mean for teams? 💡 Rethink evaluations of creativity: When assessing whether a team or individual has contributed creatively, look at both novelty and usefulness. Not only will this lead to better evaluations, but it can also block gender biases that may favor risk-taking men and undervalue women using empathy. 💡 Value both risk-taking and empathy when curating teams tasked with projects requiring creativity. Over-indexing on risk taking may shortchange true creativity Study, “Looking Inside the Black Box of Gender Differences in Creativity: A Dual-Process Model and Meta-Analysis,” was authored by Joohyung (Jenny) Kim), Manuel Vaulont, Zhen Zhang, and Kris Byron and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Link to the article covering the research in the comments. #creativity #genderbias (Image of four hands folding an origami crane from iStock, source: cienpies)

Today I made an experiment. I asked ChatGPT to describe a male doctor vs. a female doctor. Same prompt, same words, in English and Italian. But very different answers. The male doctor is reliable and analytical. The female doctor is empathetic and has tied hair. Just in time for #IWD26. But I am not the only one who tried this. My experiment aligns perfectly with existing research: Ding et al. showed consistent gender bias in six different languages: English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. For the male doctor: intelligent, ambitious, professional, skilled. For the female doctor: empathetic, patient, loving, detail-oriented. Look what else they found: 1) How LLMs describe people: Men = standout words (intelligent, charismatic, resourceful) Women= communal words (warm, nurturing, patient) This held true across ALL six languages tested. 2) How LLMs predict gender: Ask the model to fill in "he" or "she". It overwhelmingly picks "he" for intelligence and "she" for empathy. Every time. 3) What LLMs says men and women talk about: - Women complaining to men? Top topic across all languages. - Men talking to men? Career and personal development. - Women talking to women in East Asian languages? Appearance (at rates 5x higher than European languages) The bias is global. And it varies by culture in ways that mirror real-world stereotypes. The problem is... millions of people now use LLMs to write performance reviews, job descriptions, reference letters, and alike. And million people use AI to get information everyday. When your AI describes your female colleague as "nurturing" and your male colleague as "strategic", that has real life consequences. The researchers are right: this needs to be seen, understood, and addressed. And not only on the 8th of March. Link to my experiments: 🇬🇧 English: https://lnkd.in/dH2pjPBp 🇮🇹 Italian: https://lnkd.in/ddqxXerV Link to the research: https://lnkd.in/dsUQUZpf --- ➕️ Follow me Chiara Gallese, Ph.D. for more on AI and tech risks ♻️ Repost to educate your network about AI bias

🔎 Conscious Biases: “That’s Just How It Is” ✅ “Leader = Male” (Think Leader, Think Male) A Harvard Business Review study found that 76% of people associate leadership qualities with traditionally masculine traits (e.g., decisiveness). As a result, women have to put in more effort to prove their competence, even in fields where they are experts. 📖 Source: Eagly & Karau (2002) “Role Congruity Theory”. ✅ “Double Bind” Women in leadership face a paradox: if they show emotion, they are seen as “weak”; if they are firm, they are labeled “aggressive.” Research from Yale University found that highly self-confident women receive 35% less support from colleagues compared to men. 📖 Source: Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases”. ✅ “Maternal Wall” Women with children are often perceived as less committed to their careers. A Cornell University study found that mothers’ résumés received 50% fewer interview invitations compared to identical résumés of child-free women. 📖 Source: Correll et al. (2007) “Getting a Job: Maternal Bias”. 🔎 Unconscious Biases: “It’s Just How the Brain Works” ✅ “Heidi vs. Howard Effect” A Columbia Business School experiment presented the same leadership case study with two different names: “Heidi” (a woman) and “Howard” (a man). Howard was perceived as competent and likable, while Heidi was seen as selfish. 📖 Source: Flynn & Lake (2008) “The Heidi/Howard Paradox”. ✅ Unconscious Association: “Woman = Supportive Role” An fMRI study (Proverbio et al., 2022) showed that when women break traditional stereotypes (e.g., leading negotiations), observers’ amygdala—associated with anxiety—becomes more active. ✅ “Outcome Bias” Men’s success is often attributed to their talent, while women’s achievements are more likely credited to luck. A neuroeconomic experiment (Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005) found that participants were 40% more likely to select men for leadership roles, even when their qualifications were identical to women’s. 🌱 Let’s make bias a thing of the past—together!

New Research Published in QJE! 🎉 Thrilled to share our latest paper, published this week in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (with my amazing co-authors Christine Exley, Molly Moore and John-Henry Pezzuto). 📊 Across 15 studies with nearly 9,000 participants, we found that people systematically believe women are more generous, equality-oriented, and cooperative than men. Yet, the data shows that men and women’s behaviors in relation to trust, cooperation, and fairness across a variety of economic activities are far more similar than these stereotypes suggest. Participants predicted how men and women would behave in various economic games. In the Dictator Game, they estimated that women would be more generous when splitting money. In the Ultimatum Game, they anticipated women would be fairer. In the Public Goods Game, they expected women to cooperate more to a shared pot. Across 28 contexts, women were consistently expected to choose "socially-oriented" outcomes 8–13% more often than men—but these differences rarely exist. We then find similar results across a variety of other settings, vignettes and domains, plus additional experiments that hint at the role of upbringing in shaping these beliefs about gender differences. Why does this matter? These stereotypes can limit leadership opportunities, reinforce traditional family roles, and skew support for policies like equal pay and parental leave—perpetuating inequalities. 💡 Let’s challenge these beliefs and create environments where everyone can thrive. 🔗 Link to the paper in comments! #Research #Leadership #HR  #Stereotypes #GenderEquality