![\"nj7677-549a-i1\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/naturejobs\/files\/2017\/11\/nj7677-549a-i1.jpg\" "\\"nj7677-549a-i1\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nOne study suggests that the concept of \u201cbrilliance\u201d in science might discourage some women from following certain career paths or education opportunities. Another found that women are more likely than men to offer \u201chonorary authorships\u201d to scientists who may not or do not deserve it\u2014a courtesy that might obscure the magnitude of their own contributions.<\/p>\n
As part of a study published online 9 January in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology <\/a><\/em>, researchers tested the interest of nearly 200 undergraduates in hypothetical internships and possible study majors. Consistently, women were less keen about the possibilities when the descriptions emphasized the importance of brilliance by using terms like \u201cintellectual firecracker\u201d and \u201csharp, penetrating mind.\u201d\u00a0 But when descriptions of the same options used language such as \u201cgreat focus and determination\u201d\u2014words that highlighted the importance of hard work and dedication\u2014the interest from women grew significantly.<\/p>\n Conversely, men were more interested in descriptions that emphasized intelligence over effort. It\u2019s a gender difference that could have real consequences for students and researchers, says Lin Bian, a psychologist at Stanford University in California and the lead author of the paper. \u201cWomen are not motivated to pursue\u00a0fields or jobs that\u00a0are perceived as requiring\u00a0intellectual talent or brilliance,\u201d she says. She believes that more women would gravitate toward a field if more scientists acknowledged other keys to success in it, including hard work. \u201cIt\u2019s important to de-emphasize the role of brilliance in achieving success,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n In a second study, published 6 December 2017 in PLoS One<\/em><\/a>, researchers at the University of Alabama in Hunstville looked at survey responses from more than 12,000 US scholars from a wide range of disciplines. Overall, 35.5% of all respondents reported giving \u201chonorary authorships\u201d to researchers who contributed very little to the paper. The practice was most common in the health-care field and least common in the social sciences. The gender differences were even more pronounced: women were 38% more likely than men to have felt obligated to giving honorary authorships. The authors speculate that \u201cfemale researchers may be less able to resist pressure to add honorary authors because women are underrepresented in faculty leadership and administrative positions in academia and lack political power.\u201d<\/p>\n The authors had expected that women would also be more likely than men to feel coerced by a journal to add citations simply to enhance the journal\u2019s impact, but that\u2019s not what they found. In this sample, men were 18% more likely than women to be coerced.<\/p>\n Gender differences aren\u2019t always predictable, but they keep showing up just about everywhere researchers look.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Suggested reading<\/p>\n Tackling the #manel problem<\/a><\/p>\n Harassment and assault: \u2018Disheartening\u2019 trends<\/a><\/p>\n Gender gap in US science PhDs persists<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One study suggests that the concept of \u201cbrilliance\u201d in science might discourage some women from following certain career paths or education opportunities. Another found that women are more likely than men to offer \u201chonorary authorships\u201d to scientists who may not or do not deserve it\u2014a courtesy that might obscure the magnitude of their own contributions. Read more<\/a> Continue reading