What if the widely held assumption that society
universally harbors, like a negative baseline
prejudice against women, is actually missing
a massive scientifically proven piece of the
puzzle? Oh, that is, I mean, it's the kind of
counterintuitive question that instantly makes
you reconsider everything you think you know
about human social dynamics. Right. Welcome to
the deep dive because today our mission is to
explore this really fascinating, heavily researched
phenomenon called the women are wonderful effect.
And we have pulled together a serious stack of
peer reviewed research for this. I mean, spanning
from the late 1980s right up to a brand new study
from 2024. Exactly. The goal here is to shortcut
your path to being well informed about a cognitive
bias you almost certainly experience every single
day, even if you've never actually put a name
to it. But before we get into the weeds, we do
need to make a quick impartiality disclaimer.
Yes, definitely. Because discussions around gender
dynamics and societal bias can so easily get
hijacked by heated political debates. Oh, absolutely.
Which is why we are completely ignoring the politics
today. We're not taking any sides here, left
wing or right wing. Right. We are neutrally reporting
the raw cognitive data. and the findings from
the source material. We're not endorsing specific
viewpoints, just conveying the ideas exactly
as they exist in the research, so you can examine
the mechanics of this on your own terms. OK,
let's unpack this. Because before we look at
how this bias affects the world we're living
in right now, we actually need to look at how
researchers accidentally stumbled upon it. Stumbled
is definitely the right word. To understand this,
we have to look at the work of two researchers,
Alice Eagley and Antonio Mlodzinek. Right. They
officially coined the term the women are wonderful
effect in 1994. But the narrative really starts
a few years earlier at Purdue University. When
they were trying to measure something entirely
different. Exactly. In the late 80s and early
90s, they were questioning the prevailing academic
view, which was that there was this universal
baseline prejudice against women. Because at
the time, a lot of the prior research trying
to definitively prove that bias was actually
pretty inconclusive. Yeah. It was. So they decided
to run their own studies. In 1989, they gathered
203 psychology students. And then in 1991, another
324 students. Just to have them evaluate both
genders. Yes. They used questionnaires, emotion
associations, free response measures. And to
be clear, they were actively looking for empirical
evidence of prejudice against women. But the
results they got, I mean, it's like digging for
coal and accidentally striking gold. The data
completely flipped their working hypothesis on
its head. It really did. What they found in those
initial studies was this overwhelmingly positive
bias towards women. Wow. I mean, both male and
female participants universally assigned highly
positive traits to women. And men were assigned
positive traits too, right? They were, but to
a far, far lesser degree. Right. And the female
participants actually showed a dramatically more
pronounced bias in favor of women, which is an
in -group bias we'll definitely dig into in a
minute. Yeah. It's a massive factor. But across
the board, women were rated significantly higher
in positive attitudes and beliefs, though, interestingly,
not necessarily in emotions. But you know, whenever
I read about a questionnaire -based study, especially
regarding sensitive social topics, my immediate
reaction is just a little bit of skepticism.
Sure. Conscious questionnaires are so easily
gamed. Exactly. I have to wonder, is this just
people giving the socially acceptable answer?
Like, were these students just writing down what
made them look like good, progressive people?
Or is this a legitimate psychological reflex?
Well, that is the critical question. Conscious
questionnaires are highly vulnerable to social
desirability bias. People know they're being
observed. Right. But Eagley and Bladenek theorized
that this wasn't just performative. They supposed
it derived from a really deeply ingrained association
between women and nurturing characteristics.
Meaning we are culturally conditioned to link
the category of women with traits like caregiving,
warmth, compassion. Yes. And this brings in a
highly nuanced concept. Other researchers, specifically
Peter Glick and Susan Fisk, looked at this data
and coined the term benevolent sexism. Which
almost sounds like an oxymoron. I mean, how can
sexism be benevolent? It's a fascinating theory.
It argues that assigning overwhelmingly positive,
but specifically nurturing traits to a group,
well, it can still function as a form of bias
that restricts their societal roles. Oh, I see.
If society collectively agrees that women are
inherently wonderful, specifically because they're
pure and caring, it seems like a compliment.
But it creates this rigid expectation. It's like
a gilded cage. You're placed on this beautiful
pedestal, but you are still confined to the exact
dimensions of that pedestal. That is a perfect
way to visualize it. It potentially sidelines
women from roles that require assertiveness or
pragmatic aggression. So it's a highly positive
evaluation that still acts as a limiting stereotype.
That makes a lot of sense. But still, anyone
can write down a nice answer on a test. I'd only
really buy that this is a universal cognitive
phenomenon if they tested people's split -second
reflexes. Bypassing the conscious mind entirely.
Yeah, exactly. Where they don't have time to
perform for an audience. Well, you're in luck,
because that is exactly what the next wave of
research did. Researchers Laurie Rudman and Stephanie
Goodwin wanted to measure these preferences without
directly asking the participants anything at
all. Okay, so how do you do that? No questionnaires?
No questionnaires. No time to think. They conducted
computerized tasks at Purdue and Rutgers measuring
implicit associations. Oh, right. And for those
listening who know these psychological tests,
the critical mechanism here is speed, right?
Not just categorizing words. but measuring the
actual milliseconds it takes for your brain to
link a concept to a gender. Speed is the ultimate
eye detector here. Yeah. They measured how quickly
a person categorizes pleasant words like good,
happy sunshine versus unpleasant words. Bad,
trouble, pain with each gender. And what happened?
The results were staggering. The computerized
tasks completely validated the earlier questionnaires.
Both men and women have far more favorable automatic
subconscious views of women. So your brain links
the word sunshine to women way faster than it
links it to men. Exactly. But the magnitude of
the difference is the real shocker. Women's in
-group bias, their subconscious preference for
their own gender, was 4 .5 times stronger than
men's. Wait, 4 .5? That is a massive statistical
gulf. It is. Furthermore, only women showed cognitive
balance among in -group bias. identity, and self
-esteem. Hold on. Cognitive balance among in
-group bias, identity, and self -esteem. Translate
that into plain English for me. That sounds like
a lot of academic weight. Yeah, sorry. It basically
means the human brain loves a neat logical loop.
For the women in this study, their subconscious
wiring basically said, I am a woman. I like myself.
Therefore, women are inherently good. OK, I get
that. That's cognitive balance. The psychological
gears mesh perfectly to protect your own group.
Right. But what's fascinating here is that the
data shows men literally lack a mechanism that
bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.
Wait, really? But that defies everything we assume
about human tribalism. I mean, we're taught that
you automatically favor your own team, your own
demographic. Men don't automatically prefer men.
They don't. The instinctual tribalism you're
talking about just does not reliably manifest
in men when the dividing line is gender. I challenge
you listening right now to think about your own
split -second associations. It's wild to think
about. When a man sees the word trouble, his
brain just doesn't automatically push that negative
association away from his own gender the way
a woman's brain does. Exactly. The tribal instinct
is somehow neutralized. For almost everyone,
regardless of gender, positive concepts stick
to women faster and negative concepts stick to
men faster. OK, so if men aren't wired to automatically
favor their own in -group, what exactly is driving
their positive bias toward women? To answer that,
Rudman and Goodwin's research points to two very
different, very powerful aspects of human relationships,
mothers and intimacy. Let's start with the maternal
side, because the study found people showed an
automatic preference for their mothers over their
fathers, right? Yes. And they associated the
male gender with violence or aggression. It's
the contrast between maternal bonding and male
intimidation. It's kind of like the default factory
settings on a smartphone. From the moment we're
born, the primary caregiver, the source of food
and comfort, has historically been the mother.
Right. We are pre -programmed from our earliest
moments to associate safety and care with the
female gender. And alongside that, the male gender
has sociologically been associated with physical
intimidation or warfare. So that early childhood
bonding lays the foundation. But it doesn't stop
at childhood, does it? Because they also looked
at adult intimacy. They did. And this is where
the out -group preference really crystallizes
for men. The study revealed that among men who
engaged more in sexual activity, a positive attitude
towards sex correlated with a larger bias towards
women. Wow. So for men, a greater interest in
sex actually promotes an automatic preference
for the out group. Like, intimacy just overrides
tribalism. Precisely. You have early childhood
bonding, establishing safety with women, and
then adult sexual intimacy reinforces that highly
positive association for men. Now, diving into
the source material, I know there's some debate
about when this effect actually applies, because
everything we just talked about, the nurturing
mother, the caregiver, sounds very reliant on
traditional social roles. There is absolutely
a debate. Researcher Kristin Anderson argues
the women are wonderful effect is highly conditional.
She suggests it only applies when women follow
traditional roles like being a housewife or a
nurturing caregiver. Which perfectly aligns with
that benevolent sexism theory we discussed. Society
only rewards you with this bias when you stay
in your lane. Right, but looking at the broader
stack of research that conditional view isn't
exactly the consensus. Yeah. No. Laurie Redman
and Peter Glick cite studies, including the original
1991 data, showing the effect applies robustly,
even when women are in non -traditional role.
Oh, really? So the bias is anchored to the actual
category of women, not just the behavior. Exactly.
The positive cognitive bias existed regardless
of whether they were conforming to traditional
housewife roles or stepping outside them. So
we know early bonding and social roles play a
part. But does this hold up across the entire
globe? Or does the specific culture you live
in change the math? To find out, a massive study
by Cuba Kreese and his colleagues looked at participants
from 44 different countries. 44 countries? That
is an incredible data set. It's huge. They asked
participants to predict personalities based purely
on photographs, and they verified the women are
wonderful effect on a massive global scale. So
it's not just a Western phenomenon. Not at all.
But there is a really fascinating twist regarding
countries with higher gender equality. They discovered
that the women are wonderful effect actually
decreases in countries with higher gender equality.
So what does this all mean? Does that imply that
in more equal societies, people start viewing
women less positively? No. And if we connect
this to the bigger picture, it reveals a profound
paradox. The effect doesn't shrink because people
view women less positively. It shrinks because
people view men less negatively. Wait, let me
make sure I'm fully grasping this. When a society
becomes more equal, it doesn't drag women off
that pedestal. It actually cleans up the subconscious
baggage associated with men. Exactly. In more
egalitarian societies, the automatic split -second
association of men with negative traits, like
violence or strict intimidation, drops significantly.
That is an incredible realization. By moving
toward gender equality, a society essentially
detoxifies the subconscious image of the male
gender. It completely reframes how we think about
the psychological benefits of equality. It fundamentally
elevates the baseline perception of half the
population. Which brings up something so relevant
to you, the listener, and how you consume media.
We looked at a brand new 2024 study by Stuart
Williams and colleagues about the harm hypothesis.
Yes, they found that individuals who exhibit
as strong women are wonderful. effect actually
tend to react negatively to research that puts
men in a better light than women. Think about
the mechanics of that for a second. If your subconscious
is wired from childhood to view women positively
and men as more intimidating, and you read a
data point challenging that may be showing men
in a highly nurturing light, your brain experiences
friction. It violates your cognitive balance.
Right. You feel a reflexive resistance to that
information. So I want you to reflect on how
you scroll through your newsfeed. When you see
data that challenges your ingrained biases, do
you feel that subconscious pushback? Recognizing
that you harbor that bias is the first step in
ensuring it doesn't blindly dictate your reaction
to new info. Exactly. Because think about the
journey we just took. We started out assuming
society is wired with a baseline prejudice against
women, only to discover through Eagley and Mladenek
that the exact opposite is true on a general
level. Then we looked at computerized reaction
times, seeing that women possess an in -group
bias 4 .5 times stronger than men, and that men
functionally lack the psychological tribalism
to shield their own gender. We traced it back
to the cradle, the maternal factory settings
that program us to associate women with safety,
contrasted with male intimidation, and how adult
intimacy drives that out -group preference for
men. And finally, the global scale. Discovering
that as a society becomes more gender equal,
the bias decreases, not because women lose their
standing, but because the subconscious negative
view of men begins to heal. Yeah. This raises
an important question. Which is exactly what
we're here to do. If the women are wonderful
effect is so heavily driven by early maternal
bonding and the traditional association of women
with caregiving, what happens to this cognitive
bias in future generations? Oh, that is the ultimate
variable, isn't it? Right. As society becomes
more egalitarian and fathers take on a strictly
equal 50 -50 role in early -ancient nurturing
from day one, Will the women -are -wonderful
effect eventually disappear completely? Replaced
by like a parents -are -wonderful effect? Exactly.
Will the subconscious wiring of the human brain
literally update itself? That is such an incredible
thought to leave you with. As the fundamental
roles of human caregiving shift, our subconscious
wiring might shift right alongside it. Thank
you for joining us on this deep dive. Yeah, thanks
for listening. As you go about your week, try
to notice your own split -second biases in the
wild. Pay attention to where your brain naturally
defaults. Because when you expect to find universal
prejudice and instead uncover a profound subconscious
preference, well, it proves that sometimes the
most fascinating discoveries happen when your
core assumptions are proven completely wrong.