A review of experimental 'audit' studies where faculty evaluate identical male and female applicants reports that biases more often run against men than against women. The author contrasts these randomized designs with observational gap studies that can’t establish causality.
— If true, it undercuts prevailing sexism narratives in academia and calls for rethinking DEI hiring policies and compliance regimes.
Lee Jussim
2025.08.26
85% relevant
The author states their replication of science‑faculty evaluations found biases against men, directly aligning with the idea that experimental audit designs often detect male‑disadvantaging effects in academic hiring.
Lee Jussim
2025.07.30
100% relevant
Unsafe Science post (Lee Jussim, July 30, 2025) compiling faculty-audit experiments and citing his team’s three studies finding bias against hiring men.
Lee Jussim
2025.07.01
90% relevant
Jussim reports close replications of Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) reversing the original finding to show bias against men in faculty evaluations of a lab manager applicant, directly aligning with evidence that audit-style studies can reveal male disadvantage in academic hiring judgments.
Lee Jussim
2025.06.27
90% relevant
Jussim’s replications, using near-identical methods to the original, find bias against men in science-faculty evaluations, aligning with evidence from audit experiments that male applicants can be disadvantaged in academic hiring.