Psychology In the News (Pt 2)

Here's another rendition of a complex psychology study made easier to understand! (Also, I don't know why, but the font is stuck at italics)

Statements of equality may backfire and reinforce gender stereotypes

How you say things is as important as what you say. 

Imagine a young girl being told, “Girls are as good as boys at math.” 

Though the statement outwardly declares gender equality, it may subtly imply that boys have more natural abilities while girls need to put in more effort to achieve the same level. In subject-complement sentences like the above, boys are put at the ‘reference point’, making them seem like the ‘typical’ gender to be good at math. 

But why is that the case? Are people aware of this subtle implication? These sentence structures are used everywhere in our lives, and they definitely harbor a certain implication of what marks the standard. For example, the sentence, “A tent is as good as a house.” sounds natural, while a similar sentence, “a house is as good as a tent” sounds a little strange. This is because we deem ‘houses’ as the typical standard, and anything else possesses a different quality or trait. 

When it comes to abilities, being typical is associated with having more natural talent, while atypical group members are seen as needing to work harder. People are more likely to view ‘natural talent’ as a desirable trait over ‘putting in effort’, meaning girls may be put at a lower status than boys when it comes to traditionally male-dominated fields, like math or science. 

Stanford University researchers Eleanor K. Chestnut and Ellen M. Markman have investigated how these seemingly equitable statements may perpetuate harmful biases and gender stereotypes. Their work encourages us to be more mindful of the subtle implications of language.

How the Study Was Conducted

To explore this linguistic effect, Chestnut and Markman designed two experiments involving 1280 English-speaking adult participants (640 in each experiment) who read passages expressing gender equality in math (Experiment 1) and verbal ability (Experiment 2). Participants were assigned to an experimental condition that had variations in the sentence structures:

1. Girl-Framed Condition: Statements like “Girls do as well as boys at math” position boys as the reference, implying boys are the typical standard.

2. Boy-Framed Condition: Statements like “Boys do as well as girls at math” reversed the perception and implied that girls are the standard.

3. Neutral Condition: Statements like “Girls and boys are equally good at math” avoided framing either gender as the default by using both genders in the subject position.

After reading their assigned passages, participants were asked a question about which gender is more naturally talented in math or verbal ability to measure how phrasing influenced their perception. 

Experiments 1 and 2 found that participants initially attributed more natural ability to the gender’s stereotypical ‘field’ (e.g., talent in math for boys, talent in verbal ability for girls). When the statement was framed with a stereotypical gender reference, the existing bias increased. 

On the other hand, if the sentence had a non-stereotypical gender at the reference point, bias decreased (e.g., from the initial 80% to 62% of participants attributing natural verbal talent to girls). When the participants’ belief in gender difference was weak, there was even a reversal of bias – girls were perceived to have more talent in math in the ‘Boy-Framed Statements’ condition in Experiment 1. The neutral statements, which had both genders in the subject position, also reduced bias. 

Based on the results of the first two experiments, Experiment 3 was conducted to assess whether people were aware of the effects that subject-complement sentences have on biases. 384 English-speaking adults from the US (aged 19-81) participated, with 128 people in each of the three conditions. Participants read a single sentence about gender equality or inequality in math. 

1. Subject-complement condition: read “Girls do just as well as boys at math” OR “Boys and girls do equally well at math”

2. Subject-subject condition: read “Girls and boys do equally well at math” OR “Boys and girls do equally well at math” 

3. Explicit inequality condition: read “Girls do not do as well as boys at math” OR “Boys do not do as well as girls at math” 

After reading these sentences, participants were asked to judge whether the sentence was biased against the gender at the start of the sentence, using a sliding scale from “Definitely not (-100)” to “Definitely yes (100)”. 

The results for Experiment 3 were quite intuitive. Participants who read the explicitly biased statement rated it as strongly biased against the first gender mentioned, whereas the subject-subject condition was rated as strongly unbiased. Participants, however, viewed subject-complement sentences as less biased towards the gender at the start of the sentence. 

So, What Does This All Mean?

This study reveals numerous insights into sentence structure and subtle nuances that can inadvertently elicit gender bias. Subject-complement sentence structures perpetuated the belief in gender differences in math and verbal ability. Instead of assigning natural talent and effort equally to both genders, the sentences endorse differences in gender. 

Having a particular gender as the reference point (e.g., boys, in “Girls do as well as boys at math”), the statement unintentionally keeps that gender at a higher status by hinting at typicality, which is associated with innately having talent — a desirable trait — over needing to put in effort.

Noting this impact is especially important in education, where early encouragement can shape students’ self-perception, career paths, and academic confidence. If young girls repeatedly hear that they are “as good as boys at math,” they may internalize the message that boys are inherently more capable in this area. For young boys, these same statements might confirm the stereotype that they naturally excel in math, potentially affecting their attitudes and behaviors. To create an environment where all students feel empowered, we may need to be as mindful about how we say things as we are about what we say.

Moving Forward

Be aware that a sentence can look and sound like it’s promoting equality but implicitly endorses biases. Statements like “____ are as good as ___” can backfire and instead teach children that the reference group is better than the other. 

As educators, parents, and advocates, our words can have real-world effects on students’ confidence and potential. Moving from phrases that imply an innate difference to ones that present different genders as equal collaborators could be a small but meaningful step toward combating stereotypes. Language has a quiet power and can plant seeds of bias or inclusivity depending on how we frame our statements. 

---

If you're interested in the actual study, take a look at it here!