Abstract
Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are typically highly biased. In this paper, three experiments are reported, examining gender bias in SET by manipulating lecturer gender and counterstereotypes. Each experiment involved a vignette about a lecture, with a different context: Study 1 − noisy students disrupting the lesson; Study 2 − students asking for consideration; Study 3 − neutral context of a routine lecture. Structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed that the effect of lecturer gender on SET depended on the context and was both directly (Study 1) and indirectly (Studies 2 and 3) mediated by gender stereotypes. The effect of student's gender was indirect and mediated by gender stereotypes in all studies. Counterstereotypical descriptions did not affect stereotypical perceptions in any of the experiments. The findings are discussed in terms of social dominance theory (SDT) and social role theory (SRT). They offer novel insights into the mechanism that explains gender and context bias in SET. In terms of practical implications, SET should be considered with caution, particularly when used for critical decisions such as tenure status. Finally, applying additional assessments and statistical methods to control for gender bias is important.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability Statement
Datasets and materials for all three studies can be made available upon request to the author. The syntaxes of the data analysis for all three studies can be made available upon request to the author.
Code Availability
Code for analysis for all three studies (SEM, AMOS24) can be made available upon request to the author.
Notes
Throughout this article, a binary classification of men or women lecturers and students is made. While acknowledging that that gender and gender identity are more complex phenomena, this approach is taken for simplicity’s sake and because in the experimental design, two binary characters of either a male or female professors were presented.
Shlomit and Shlomi are common feminine and masculine names in Hebrew.
Note that this sample included only Jewish students and therefore does not represent the Arab population in Israel. In ethnic bias, the reference is to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
Since 2006, iPanel has provided an online platform for a wide variety of information collection services, including polls and public opinion surveys. It adheres to the stringent standards of the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR). iPanel recruits its large pool of respondents through sponsored links on Google, Facebook, and other websites. Respondents are asked to take part in periodic surveys in exchange for gift vouchers.
Note that eight of those who made an incorrect identification answered "I don’t know" for the neutral condition in which no hobbies were listed, so it may be that they did so since no hobbies were mentioned. If we remove those participants from the incorrect identifications, 248 (87%) of the responders correctly identified the lecturer's hobbies or stereotypical condition.
References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116
Basow, S. A., & Montgomery, S. (2005). Student ratings and professor self-ratings of college teaching: Effects of gender and divisional affiliation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-006-9001-8
Berkovitch, N. (1997). Motherhood as a national mission: The construction of womanhood in the legal discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(5), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00055-1
Binderkrantz, A. S., & Bisgaard, M. (2024). A gender affinity effect: the role of gender in teaching evaluations at a Danish university. Higher Education, 87(3), 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01025-9
Binderkrantz, A. S., Bisgaard, M., & Lassesen, B. (2022). Contradicting findings of gender bias in teaching evaluations: Evidence from two experiments in Denmark. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048355
Bordalo, P., Coffman, K., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2019). Beliefs about gender. American Economic Review, 109(3), 739–773. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170007
Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1
Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741. https://doi-org.bengurionu.idm.oclc.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00238
Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780814
Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2012). Men and women are from earth: examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030437
Chestnut, E. K., Zhang, M. Y., & Markman, E. M. (2021). “Just as good”: Learning gender stereotypes from attempts to counteract them. Developmental Psychology, 57(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001143
Chuey, A., Boyce, V., Cao, A., & Frank, M. C. (2022). Conducting developmental research online vs. in-person: A meta-analysis. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qc6fw
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward woman leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
Fan, Y., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., Waters, D., Stone, M., Abel, R., & Johnston, E. L. (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PloS one, 14(2), e0209749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.
Finnegan, E., Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (2015). Counter-stereotypical pictures as a strategy for overcoming spontaneous gender stereotypes. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 152787.
Gerrard, B., Morandini, J., & Dar-Nimrod, I. (2023). Gay and straight men prefer masculine-presenting gay men for a high-status role: Evidence from an ecologically valid experiment. Sex Roles, 88(3–4), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01332-y
Goldin, C. (2006). The quiet revolution that transformed women’s employment, education, and family. American Economic Review, 96(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806777212350
Harush, P., Elikishvili, S., & Kaspi-Baruch, O. (2023). Perceiving an ambiguous situation as sexual harassment: The influence of observer and harasser gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 32(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1975107
Heck, J. L., Todd, J., & Finn, D. (2002). Is student performance enhanced by perceived teaching quality? Journal of Financial Education, 28, 54–62.
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
Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011
Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In S. McKeown, R. Haji, & N. Ferguson (Eds.), In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory: Contemporary Global Perspectives (pp. 3–17). Cham, Springer.
Hoorens, V., Dekkers, G., & Deschrijver, E. (2021). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: Students’ self-affirmation reduces the bias by lowering evaluations of man professors. Sex Roles, 84(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01148-8
Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity”, and “femininity” A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000343
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
Kneeskern, E. E., & Reeder, P. A. (2022). Examining the impact of fiction literature on children’s gender stereotypes. Current Psychology, 41(3), 1472–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00686-4
Knowles, E. D., & Lowery, B. S. (2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self & Identity, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.201.542015
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2022). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
Lippa, R. A. (2005). How do lay people weight information about instrumentality, expressiveness, and gender-typed hobbies when judging masculinity–femininity in themselves, best friends, and strangers? Sex Roles, 53(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4277-6
Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Milne, A. B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person perception: Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.397
Martin, A. E., & Slepian, M. L. (2021). The primacy of gender: Gendered cognition underlies the big two dimensions of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904961
Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2014). Man backlash: Penalties for men who violate gender stereotypes. In R. J. Burke & D. A. Major (Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career advancement? (pp. 247–269). Edward Elgar.
Özgümüs, A., Rau, H. A., Trautmann, S. T., & König-Kersting, C. (2020). Gender bias in the evaluation of teaching materials. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.202.01074
Parent, M. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(4), 568–600.
Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bacharach, H., et al. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimation of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005
Renström, E. A., Gustafsson Sendén, M., & Lindqvist, A. (2021). Gender stereotypes in student evaluations of teaching. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.202.571287
Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2019). Scaling down inequality: Rating scales, gender bias, and the architecture of evaluation. American Sociological Review, 84(2), 248–274.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypical behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against woman leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.1.008
Sauter, M., Draschkow, D., & Mack, W. (2020). Building, hosting and recruiting: A brief introduction to running behavioral experiments online. Brain Sciences, 10(4), 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10040251
Sher-Censor, E. (2015). The challenges of Israeli adolescent girls: Gender differences in observed autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-mother interactions. Sex Roles, 72(3–4), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0445-5
Sidanius, J., Ekehammar, B., & Lukowsky, J. (1983). Social status and sociopolitical ideology among Swedish youth. Youth & Society, 14(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X83014004001
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2012). Social dominance theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 418–438). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n47
Skočajić, M. M., Radosavljević, J. G., Okičić, M. G., Janković, I. O., & Žeželj, I. L. (2020). Boys just don’t! gender stereotyping and sanctioning of counter-stereotypical behavior in preschoolers. Sex Roles, 82(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01051-x
Stelter, N. Z. (2002). Gender differences in leadership: Current social issues and future organizational implications. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200800408
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Van den Berghe, P. L. (1978). Race and ethnicity: A sociobiological perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1(4), 401–411.
Wallisch, P., & Cachia, J. (2019). Determinants of perceived teaching quality: the role of divergent interpretations of expectations. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dsvgq
Walumbwa, F. O., & Ojode, L. A. (2000, March-April). Gender stereotype and instructors’ leadership behavior: Transformational and transactional leadership. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Management Annual Conference, Chicago.
Wen, F., Zuo, B., Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Fang, Z., & Ma, S. (2020). The (continuous) nature of perceived gender counter-stereotype: A threshold model of gender stereotype maintenance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 2511–3253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01763-2
Whitworth, J. E., Price, B. A., & Randall, C. H. (2002). Factors that affect college of business student opinion of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599677
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
Zipser, N., Mincieli, L., & Kurochkin, D. (2021). Are there gender differences in quantitative student evaluations of instructors? Research in High Education, 62, 976–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09628-w
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
There is a single author to this paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection.
Consent to Participate
Consent to participate was obtained prior to data collection.
Conflict of Interest
The author has no competing interests relevant to the content of this article to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Baruch, O.K. The Persistence of Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching: The Role of Gender Stereotypes. J Acad Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09535-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09535-6