The frequency of "brilliant" and "genius" in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across academia

Because of the negative stereotypes against women’s and African Americans’ intellectual abilities, academic fields that prize brilliance and genius might be unwelcoming to members of these stigmatized groups. A recent nationwide survey of academics provided initial support for this possibility, insofar as the fields whose practitioners believed that natural talent is crucial for success in their field were also the fields where women and African Americans were least likely to obtain Ph.D.’s. The present study seeks to replicate this initial finding with a different, and arguably more naturalistic, measure of the extent to which brilliance and genius are prized within a field. Specifically, we measured field-by-field variability in the emphasis on these intellectual qualities by tallying college students’ use of the words “brilliant” and “genius” in over 14 million reviews on RateMyProfessors.com. Consistent with prior work, this simple word count predicted both women’s and African Americans’ representation at the Ph.D. level across the academic spectrum: Fields where the words “brilliant” and “genius” were frequent in undergraduates’ evaluations also had fewer female and African American Ph.D.’s. This relationship held even when accounting for a field’s intellectual rigor (as indexed by students’ average scores on the Quantitative Graduate Record Examination [GRE]), as well as several other explanations concerning group differences in representation. The fact that such a simple, naturalistic measure of a field’s focus on brilliance predicted the magnitude of its gender and race gaps speaks to the tight link between ability beliefs and diversity

Who’s brilliant – men or women? Measuring implicit stereotypes about gender across development

Recent evidence suggests that women may be underrepresented in fields said to require high levels of intellectual ability (“brilliance”). These fields may be unwelcoming to women because of a pervasive “brilliance = men” stereotype. This hypothesis is termed the Field- specific Ability Beliefs (or FAB) Hypothesis (e.g., Leslie, Cimpian et al., 2017; Storage et al., 2016). While a wealth of evidence has established a link between the presence of beliefs about the importance of brilliance and women’s underrepresentation in a field, less work has been done to document the “brilliance = men” stereotype. The aim of the present work, then, was to provide evidence that people tend to associate intellectual giftedness with men over women. Across six studies (total N = 1,675), I devised systematic tests of people’s implicit biases about the brilliance of men vs. women, and found that children ages 9 and 10, undergraduates from the University of Illinois and New York University, general population adults from across the United States, and adults from 70 countries beyond the United States all tended to associate traits such as “genius” and “brilliant”—as well as less extreme descriptors, such as “intelligent” and “smart”—with men over women. Together, the results reveal a pervasive stereotype that associates intellectual ability with men more than women, which warrants further discussion and investigation

The frequency of "brilliant" and "genius" in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields

Women and African Americans-groups targeted by negative stereotypes about their intellectual abilities-may be underrepresented in careers that prize brilliance and genius. A recent nationwide survey of academics provided initial support for this possibility. Fields whose practitioners believed that natural talent is crucial for success had fewer female and African American PhDs. The present study seeks to replicate this initial finding with a different, and arguably more naturalistic, measure of the extent to which brilliance and genius are prized within a field. Specifically, we measured field-by-field variability in the emphasis on these intellectual qualities by tallying-with the use of a recently released online tool-the frequency of the words "brilliant" and "genius" in over 14 million reviews on RateMyProfessors.com, a popular website where students can write anonymous evaluations of their instructors. This simple word count predicted both women's and African Americans' representation across the academic spectrum. That is, we found that fields in which the words "brilliant" and "genius" were used more frequently on RateMyProfessors.com also had fewer female and African American PhDs. Looking at an earlier stage in students' educational careers, we found that brilliance-focused fields also had fewer women and African Americans obtaining bachelor's degrees. These relationships held even when accounting for field-specific averages on standardized mathematics assessments, as well as several competing hypotheses concerning group differences in representation. The fact that this naturalistic measure of a field's focus on brilliance predicted the magnitude of its gender and race gaps speaks to the tight link between ability beliefs and diversity

Description of the Efficacy and Safety of Three New Biologics in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

English articles on abatacept, golimumab, and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis published between 2002 and 2009 were reviewed systematically. All randomized clinical trials, open-label extensions, meta-analyses, and reviews were examined. There were thirteen articles on abatacept, four on golimumab, and seven on tocilizumab. All three drugs were effective in methotrexate-naïve, methotrexate-incomplete responders, and tumor-necrosis-factor-failure rheumatoid arthritis patients. Of the three, only abatacept has been tested in a head-to-head trial with infliximab, in which it was found to be equivalent to infliximab. Golimumab resulted in a more modest improvement than the others in methotrexate-naïve patients, although no direct comparisons among the three drugs were possible or appropriate. Descriptive analysis of adverse events showed that patients receiving abatacept, golimumab, and tocilizumab were subject to more adverse events than controls overall, as expected. In the abatacept studies, a few cases of tuberculosis, more cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal bleedings and more basal cell carcinoma were seen. Golimumab was associated with more skin rashes and pneumonia, while tocilizumab was associated with increased lipids, more liver-function abnormalities, and neutropenia. These new medications are useful additions to the rheumatologic armamentarium and represent greater convenience (golimumab) or different mechanisms of action (abatacept and tocilizumab) than tumor-necrosis-factor inhibitors for treating rheumatoid arthritis. As expected, some adverse events occur when using these drugs and patients need to be watched carefully

Big Genomes Facilitate the Comparative Identification of Regulatory Elements

The identification of regulatory sequences in animal genomes remains a significant challenge. Comparative genomic methods that use patterns of evolutionary conservation to identify non-coding sequences with regulatory function have yielded many new vertebrate enhancers. However, these methods have not contributed significantly to the identification of regulatory sequences in sequenced invertebrate taxa. We demonstrate here that this differential success, which is often attributed to fundamental differences in the nature of vertebrate and invertebrate regulatory sequences, is instead primarily a product of the relatively small size of sequenced invertebrate genomes. We sequenced and compared loci involved in early embryonic patterning from four species of true fruit flies (family Tephritidae) that have genomes four to six times larger than those of Drosophila melanogaster. Unlike in Drosophila, where virtually all non-coding DNA is highly conserved, blocks of conserved non-coding sequence in tephritids are flanked by large stretches of poorly conserved sequence, similar to what is observed in vertebrate genomes. We tested the activities of nine conserved non-coding sequences flanking the even-skipped gene of the teprhitid Ceratis capitata in transgenic D. melanogaster embryos, six of which drove patterns that recapitulate those of known D. melanogaster enhancers. In contrast, none of the three non-conserved tephritid non-coding sequences that we tested drove expression in D. melanogaster embryos. Based on the landscape of non-coding conservation in tephritids, and our initial success in using conservation in tephritids to identify D. melanogaster regulatory sequences, we suggest that comparison of tephritid genomes may provide a systematic means to annotate the non-coding portion of the D. melanogaster genome. We also propose that large genomes be given more consideration in the selection of species for comparative genomics projects, to provide increased power to detect functional non-coding DNAs and to provide a less biased view of the evolution and function of animal genomes

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects

We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science

The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline

This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had “in the pipeline” as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed

The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology Through a Distributed Collaborative Network

Source at https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607.Concerns about the veracity of psychological research have been growing. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions or replicate prior research in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time limited), efficient (in that structures and principles are reused for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in both subjects and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematic examination of its generalizability

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)