Historically, female experts have been perceived as less competent but more likable than their male counterparts. This experimental study (n = 958) examines the intricate relationship between likability, competence, scientist gender, participant gender, and trust scientific expertise. Our results illuminated the mediating role of likability in shaping perceptions of competence, where heightened likability positively influenced perceived competence. Moreover, exposure to science messages from female scientists significantly increased trust in science through a serial mediation model. Notably, participants liked the scientist of the opposite gender; thus we did not observe a gender affinity effect.
AmarasekaraI.GrantW. J. (2019). Exploring the YouTube science communication gender gap: A sentiment analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625187866
2.
BanchefskyS.WestfallJ.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2016). But you don’t look like a scientist! Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1
3.
BauerN. M.HarmanM.RussellE. B. (2024). Do voters punish ambitious women? Tracking a gendered backlash toward the 2020 democratic presidential contenders. Political Behavior, 46, 1–20.
4.
BighamA.MeyersC.LiN.IrlbeckE. (2019). The effect of emphasizing credibility elements and the role of source gender on perceptions of source credibility. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2270
5.
BinderkrantzA. S.BisgaardM. (2024). A gender affinity effect: The role of gender in teaching evaluations at a Danish university. Higher Education, 87, 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01025-9
6.
BoehmerD. M.WoodW. C. (2017). Student vs. faculty perspectives on quality instruction: Gender bias, “hotness,” and “easiness” in evaluating teaching. Journal of Education for Business, 92(4), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1313189
7.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/036168431562264
8.
DalyotK.RozenblumY.Baram-TsabariA. (2022). Engagement patterns with female and male scientists on Facebook. Public Understanding of Science, 31(7), 867–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221092696
9.
DixsonB. J.BrooksR. C. (2013). The role of facial hair in women’s perceptions of men’s attractiveness, health, masculinity and parenting abilities. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 236–241.
10.
DixsonB. J.VaseyP. L. (2012). Beards augment perceptions of men’s age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness. Behavioral Ecology, 23(3), 481–490.
11.
DolanK. (2008). Is there a “gender affinity effect” in American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in US House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290730751
12.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35
13.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich college publishers.
14.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35.
15.
EatonA. A.SaundersJ. F.JacobsonR. K.WestK. (2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w
16.
Eizmendi-IraolaM.Peña-FernándezS. (2022). Gender stereotypes make women invisible: The presence of female scientists in the media. Social Sciences, 12(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010030
17.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372147738825
18.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. TRENDS Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
19.
ForgasJ. P.LahamS. (2009). Halo effects. In BaumeisterR.VohsK. D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 499–502). Sage.
GlickP.WilkK.PerreaultM. (1995). Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32, 565–582.
22.
GoldsteinD. A. N.WiedemannJ. (2022). Who do you trust? The consequences of partisanship and trust for public responsiveness to COVID-19 orders. Perspectives on Politics, 20(2), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721000049
23.
GoosM.KellyR. (2021). Addressing the gender gap in science: Lessons from examining international initiatives. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 93(8), 949–954.
24.
Greve-PoulsenK.LarsenF. K.PedersenR. T.AlbækE. (2023). No gender bias in audience perceptions of male and female experts in the news: Equally competent and persuasive. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211025499
25.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
26.
HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2011). Sarah Palin, a nation object(ifie)s: The role of appearance focus in the 2008 US presidential election. Sex Roles, 65, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9901-4
27.
HeinbachD.ZiegeleM.QuiringO. (2018). Sleeper effect from below: Long-term effects of source credibility and user comments on the persuasiveness of news articles. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4765–4786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818784472
28.
HendriksF.KienhuesD.BrommeR. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLOS ONE, 10(1), Article e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
29.
HovlandC. I.WeissW. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
30.
HuberB.BaenaL. Q. (2023). Women scientists on TikTok: New opportunities to become visible and challenge gender stereotypes. Media and Communication, 11(1), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i1.6070
31.
HubnerA. Y.BondR. (2022). I am a scientist. . . Ask me anything: Examining differences between male and female scientists participating in a Reddit AMA session. Public Understanding of Science, 31(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211048775
32.
JamiesonK. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. Oxford University Press.
33.
JarreauP. B.CancellareI. A.CarmichaelB. J.PorterL.TokerD.YammineS. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5), Article e0216625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625
34.
JungerJ.FahnrichB. (2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408.
KimN.SkurkaC.MaddenS. (2024). The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist’s credibility and likability on social media. Public Understanding of Science, 33(6), 692–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231225073
37.
KlaasE.BoukesM. (2022). A woman’s got to write what a woman’s got to write: The effect of journalist’s gender on the perceived credibility of news articles. Feminist Media Studies, 22(3), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1838596
38.
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracínD.SeignourelP. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00620.x
39.
ManziF.HeilmanM. E. (2021). Breaking the glass ceiling: For one and all?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000260
40.
MariniM.BanajiM. R. (2022). An implicit gender sex-science association in the general population and STEM faculty. The Journal of General Psychology, 149(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1853502
41.
McDonaldL.BarrialtC.MerrittT. (2020). Effects of gender harrassment on science popularization behaviors. Public Understanding of Science, 29(7), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520946667
42.
McGuireW. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). Random House.
43.
McPhersonE.BanchefskyS.ParkB. (2022). Trait stereotypes of scientists as analytical and cold align with perceptions of men more than women on both implicit and explicit measures. Social Cognition, 40(3), 228–258.
44.
MengelF.SauermannJ.ZölitzU. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx057
45.
MillerD. I.NollaK. M.EaglyA. H.UttalD. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of US draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
46.
MillerJ.ChamberlinM. (2000). Women are teachers, men are professors: A study of student perceptions. Teaching Sociology, 28, 283–298.
47.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.
48.
NadarevicL.ReberR.HelmeckeA. J.KöseD. (2020). Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: An experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00251-4
49.
PietriE. S.JohnsonI. R.OzgumusE.YoungA. I. (2018). Maybe she is relatable: Increasing women’s awareness of gender bias encourages their identification with women scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(2), 192–219. 10.1177/03616843177752643
50.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
51.
RudmanL. A.FairchildK. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
52.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004
53.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
54.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motives prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
55.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192–202.
56.
SandersT. (2006). The likability factor: How to boost your L-factor and achieve your life’s dreams. Crown Business.
57.
SchneiderA. K.TinsleyC. H.CheldelinS.AmanatullahE. T. (2010). Likeability v. competence: The impossible choice faced by female politicians, attenuated by lawyers. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 17, 363–384.
58.
SchneiderM. C.BosA. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12040
59.
ShulmanH. C.DixonG. N.BullockO. M.Colón AmillD. (2020). The effects of jargon on processing fluency, self-perceptions, and scientific engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(5–6), 579–597.
60.
SigurdardottirM. S.RafnsdottirG. L.JónsdóttirA. H.KristoferssonD. M. (2023). Student evaluation of teaching: Gender bias in a country at the forefront of gender equality. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(4), 954–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2087604
61.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26(6), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791
62.
SteinkeJ.BaumelK.TurnerM. M. (2024). Cultivating authenticity as role models: Women in STEM influencers on Instagram. Science Communication, 46(5), 543–583.
63.
StoutJ. G.GrunbergV. A.ItoT. A. (2016). Gender roles and stereotypes about science careers help explain women and men’s science pursuits. Sex Roles, 75, 490–499.
64.
ThomasM. D.HenleyT. B.SnellC. M. (2006). The draw a scientist test: A different population and a somewhat different story. College Student Journal, 40(1), 140–148.
65.
VragaE.MyersT.KotcherJ.BeallL.MaibachE. (2018). Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists’ political orientations and credibility. Royal Society Open Science, 5(2), 170505.
66.
WangM. T.DegolJ. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
67.
WilliamsM. J.TiedensL. 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
68.
YoungD. M.RudmanL. A. B.uettnerH. M.McLeanM. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 283–292.
