Methods and History of Gender Research 43her book.) According to Faludi, the results of
studies that support the culture of the time
are more likely to attract headlines. For ex-
ample, in 1986, a story in the newspaper
showed that the chance of a single college-
educated woman getting married was 20% at
age 30, 5% at age 35, and 1.3% at age 40. The
study made front-page news, despite ques-
tionable methods and a small sample size.
A follow-up study that used actual census
data showed quite different statistics: at age
30, 58% to 66%; at age 35, 32% to 41%, and
at age 40, 17% to 23%. The follow-up study,
however, was not picked up by the media.
Faludi reports another example having to do
with age and infertility. A 1982 study of in-
fertility widely noted in newspapers and on
radio and television talk shows showed that
women between the ages of 31 and 35 had a
40% chance of becoming infertile. Report-
ers did not note, however, that this study
was based on a very unique sample: women
receiving artificial insemination because
their husbands were sterile. A subsequent
study based on a more representative sample
showed that the infertility rate for women
between the ages of 30 and 34 was 14%, only
3% more than women in their early 20s.
Faludi’s position is that research find-
ings showing adverse effects of the women’s
movement on women’s economics, fertility,
and relationships were being highlighted in
the 1980s, whereas research findings show-
ing positive effects of the women’s move-
ment were stifled. These examples show
that the media are more likely to sensation-
alize the more outrageous research findings
and are less likely to highlight findings of
sex similarities. Sex differences are interest-
ing; sex similarities are not. The media can
also distort the explanations for findings of
differences between men and women. One
study showed that the political orientation oftheir hypotheses. That is, experimenters who
believe there are sex differences may conduct
a dozen studies until a difference appears and
then report that one difference. Experimenters
who believe there are no differences between
men and women may conduct a dozen studies,
slightly altering the situation in each one, un-
til no difference appears and then report that
study. This is a problem for the study of gender
because, as noted in Chapter 1, there are differ-
ent political philosophies about whether there
are a few small sex differences or major sex dif-
ferences that pervade our lives.
Another problem with the communi-
cation of results is that sex differences are
inherently more interesting than sex simi-
larities; therefore, studies of differences are
more likely to be published. A researcher
who designs a study that does not involve is-
sues of gender may routinely compare men’s
and women’s behavior in the hope that no
differences are found. In this case, the in-
vestigator considers sex to be a nuisance
variable. If no differences are found, gender
is not mentioned in the article or buried in
a single sentence in the method section, so
there is no record of the similarity! If dif-
ferences are found, gender may become the
focus of the study. The scientific bias of pub-
lishing differences is perpetuated by the me-
dia, which are not likely to pick up a story on
a study that shows sex similarities. A study
that shows differences is going to gather the
attention of the media and will be placed in a
prominent place in the newspaper.
This problem was highlighted in Susan
Faludi’s (1991) book,Backlash: The Unde-
clared War against American Women. She
describes somewhat questionable research
findings that are published by the media
even when refuted by other scientific re-
search. (The divorce statistic example at the
beginning of this chapter was discussed inM02_HELG0185_04_SE_C02.indd 43 6/21/11 12:19 PM