Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Do people prefer that artificial intelligence (AI) aligns with gender stereotypes when requesting help to answer a question? We found that people preferred gender stereotypicality (over counterstereotypicality and androgyny) in voice-based AI when seeking help (e.g., preferring feminine voices to answer questions in feminine domains; Studies 1a–1b). Preferences for stereotypicality were stronger when using binary zero-sum (vs. continuous non-zero-sum) assessments (Study 2). Contrary to expectations, biases were larger when judging human (vs. AI) targets (Study 3). Finally, people were more likely to request (vs. decline) assistance from gender stereotypical (vs. counterstereotypical) human targets, but this choice bias did not extend to AI targets (Study 4). Across studies, we observed stronger preferences for gender stereotypicality in feminine (vs. masculine) domains, potentially due to examining biases in a stereotypically feminine context (helping). These studies offer nuanced insights into conditions under which people use gender stereotypes to evaluate human and non-human entities.

Keywords

gender stereotyping artificial intelligence help

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahn

Kim

Sung

(2022). The effect of gender stereotypes on artificial intelligence recommendations. Journal of Business Research, 141, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.007

Alter

A. L.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

(2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564

Atwood

Axt

J. R.

(2021). Assessing implicit attitudes about androgyny. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104162

Audacity Team (2022). Audacity(R): Free Audio Editor and Recorder [Computer program]. Version 2.4.4 retrieved from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Auster

C. J.

Mansbach

C. S.

(2012). The gender marketing of toys: An analysis of color and type of toy on the Disney store website. Sex Roles, 67(7–8), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0177-8

Basow

S. A.

Howe

K. G.

(1987). Evaluations of college professors: Effects of professors’ sex-type, and sex, and students’ sex. Psychological Reports, 60(2), 671–678. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.2.671

Bates

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

(2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.04967

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

Bem

S. L.

(1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

10.

Bergeron

Rochford

(2022). Good soldiers versus organizational wives: Does anyone (besides us) care that organizational citizenship behavior scales are gendered and mostly measure men’s—but not women’s—citizenship behavior? Group & Organization Management, 47(5), 936–951. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221094421

11.

Boersma

Weenink

(2020). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1.51, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/

12.

Bort

(2015, April 17). Ginni Rometty is now referring to IBM’s Super Smart Computer Watson as a “he.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/ginni-rometty-refers-to-watson-as-a-he-2015-4

13.

Bosson

J. K.

Wilkerson

Kosakowska-Berezecka

Jurek

Olech

(2022). Harder won and easier lost? Testing the double standard in gender rules in 62 countries. Sex Roles, 87, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01297-y

14.

Brahnam

de Angeli

(2008). Special issue on the abuse and misuse of social agents. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.001

15.

Charlesworth

T. E.

Yang

Mann

T. C.

Kurdi

Banaji

M. R.

(2021). Gender stereotypes in natural language: Word embeddings show robust consistency across child and adult language corpora of more than 65 million words. Psychological Science, 32(2), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620963619

16.

Craiut

M.-V.

Iancu

I. R.

(2022). Is technology gender neutral? A systematic literature review on gender stereotypes attached to artificial intelligence. Human Technology, 18(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2022.18-3.6

17.

Davis

J. T. M.

Hines

(2020). How large are gender differences in toy preferences? A systematic review and meta-analysis of toy preference research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7

18.

De Angeli

(2009). Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents. PsychNology Journal, 7(1), 49–57.

19.

Diekman

A. B.

Schmader

(2021). Gender as embedded social cognition. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wvx2s

20.

Eagly

A. H.

Koenig

A. M.

(2021). The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211013775

21.

Ellemers

(2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

22.

Eyssel

Hegel

(2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2213–2230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x

23.

Fitzmaurice

G. M.

Laird

N. M.

Ware

J. H.

(2012). Applied longitudinal analysis (Vol. 998). John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Fortunati

Edwards

Manganelli

A. M.

De Luca

(2022). Is Alexa female, male, or neutral? A cross-national and cross-gender comparison of perceptions of Alexa’s gender and status as a communicator. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107426

25.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

Mladinic

Saiz

J. L.

Abrams

Masser

Adetoun

Osagie

J. E.

Akande

Alao

Brunner

Willemsen

T. M.

Chipeta

Dardenne

Dijksterhuis

Wigboldus

Eckes

Six-Materna

Expósito

. . .López

(2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763

26.

Green

MacLeod

C. J.

(2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498.

27.

Haraway

(1987). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Australian Feminist Studies, 2(4), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1987.9961538

28.

Hartman

Moss

A. J.

Jaffe

S. N.

Rosenzweig

Litman

Robinson

(2023). Introducing connect by CloudResearch: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksgyr

29.

Heilman

M. E.

(2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

30.

Hester

Jones

B. C.

Hehman

(2021). Perceived femininity and masculinity contribute independently to facial impressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1147–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000989

31.

Jackson

L. A.

(1983). The perception of androgyny and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093011

32.

Judd

C. M.

Westfall

Kenny

D. A.

(2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347

33.

Koenig

A. M.

Eagly

A. H.

(2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215

34.

Kurzban

Tooby

Cosmides

(2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.251541498

35.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2017). LmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

36.

Legg

Hutter

(2007). A collection of definitions of intelligence. In Goertzel

Wang

(Eds.), Advances in artificial general intelligence: Concepts, architectures and algorithms. IOS Press.

37.

Litman

Robinson

Abberbock

(2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z

38.

Mahfud

Badea

Verkuyten

Reynolds

(2018). Multiculturalism and attitudes toward immigrants: The impact of perceived cultural distance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(6), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117730828

39.

Martin

A. E.

Mason

M. F.

(2022). What does it mean to be (seen as) human? The importance of gender in humanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000293

40.

Martin

A. E.

Mason

M. F.

(2023). Hey Siri, I love you: People feel more attached to gendered technology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 104, 104402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104402

41.

Martin

A. E.

Slepian

M. L.

(2018). Dehumanizing gender: The debiasing effects of gendering human-abstracted entities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(12), 1681–1696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218774777

42.

McDonald

(2017, October 25). The advance of AI is uncertain. But that doesn’t mean we can’t prepare for it. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/the-uncertain-advance-of-artificial-intelligence-requires-a-flexible-human-resource-strategy/

43.

Mohsenin

Munz

K. P.

(2024). Gender-ambiguous voices and social disfluency. Psychological Science, 35(5), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241238222

44.

Morgenroth

Ryan

M. K.

(2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320

45.

Noble

S. U.

(2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

46.

Nordström

(2022). AI under great uncertainty: Implications and decision strategies for public policy. AI & Society, 37(4), 1703–1714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01263-4

47.

Parkinson

H. J.

(2015, Aug, 12). Hey, Siri! Meet the real people behind Apple’s voice-activated assistant. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/12/siri-real-voices-apple-ios-assistant-jon-briggs-susan-bennett-karen-jacobsen

48.

Petrotte

A. D.

(2024). Qualtrics task tracker. GitHub repository. https://github.com/toaster515/Qualtrics_Task_Tracker

49.

Petty

R. E.

Briñol

(2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224–245). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n12

50.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Goldman

(1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847

51.

Poole

D. L.

Mackworth

A. K.

(2010). Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computational agents. Cambridge University Press.

52.

Purtill

(2021, February 12). Hey, Alexa, are you sexist? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/alexa-bots-female-voice.html

53.

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

54.

Rudman

L. A.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Glick

Phelan

J. E.

(2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 167–227.

55.

Russell

S. J.

Norvig

(2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269888900007724

56.

Skewes

Fine

Haslam

(2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921

57.

Spence

J. T.

(1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.624

58.

Stern

Rule

N. O.

(2018). Physical androgyny and categorization difficulty shape political conservatives’ attitudes toward transgender people. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703172

59.

Stroessner

S. J.

Benitez

Perez

M. A.

Wyman

A. B.

Carpinella

C. M.

Johnson

K. L.

(2020). What’s in a shape? Evidence of gender category associations with basic forms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103915

60.

Tay

Jung

Park

(2014). When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014

61.

Tebbe

E. N.

Moradi

(2012). Anti-transgender prejudice: A structural equation model of associated constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026990

62.

Upbin

(2013, October 18). IBM’s Watson now tackles clinical trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/18/ibms-watson-now-tackles-clinical-trials-at-md-anderson-cancer-center/?sh=785f38994e1e

63.

Weisgram

E. S.

Fulcher

Dinella

L. M.

(2014). Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children’s toy preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004

64.

Westfall

Kenny

D. A.

Judd

C. M.

(2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2020–2045. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014

65.

Wilkie

J. E. B.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

(2015). The numerology of gender: Gendered perceptions of even and odd numbers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00810

66.

Williams

M. J.

Tiedens

L. Z.

(2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039

67.

Winkielman

Halberstadt

Fazendeiro

Catty

(2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.04 MB

Preferences for Gender Stereotypicality in Artificial Intelligence: Existence,Comparison to Human Biases,and Implications for Choice

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material