New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Creativity Bias against Women

Research shows that females are perceived as less “creative” in many contexts

a woman painting

If this is true, then women may see their professional opportunities limited in workplaces where creativity is highly prized — and companies may lose out by undervaluing the creative ideas generated by their female employees.

Credit: Serg Myshkovsky via ©iStock

More than ever, creativity has become a hot commodity in the workplace. Businesses compete ferociously for new ideas, and Silicon Valley — with its extreme focus on innovation — is the current bright spot of the US economy. Companies need employees who can tackle difficult problems, learn new skills fast, and identify opportunities in unexpected places. Top employers are increasingly looking to hire individuals who excel at creative thinking.

But whether you are seen as creative or not may depend on whether you’re a man or a woman. A recent paper by Devon Proudfoot, Aaron Kay, and Christy Koval at the Fuqua School of Business suggests that in certain contexts, people are more likely to associate creativity with men than with women. If this is true, then women may see their professional opportunities limited in workplaces where creativity is highly prized — and companies may lose out by undervaluing the creative ideas generated by their female employees.

In one study, Proudfoot and colleagues recruited one hundred and sixty-nine online participants to evaluate a fictitious professional who was described as either an architect or a fashion designer. Half the participants were led to believe that the professional was a man while the other half were told that the person was a woman. The study participants then evaluated the professional’s work in the form of three images (houses or fashion designs). The participants then answered questions about how creative they thought the images were. When it came to architecture, the participants rated the images as more creative when they thought the work had been done by a man. With fashion design, there was no difference in the creativity ratings.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers wondered whether this bias in favor of men would show up in a more real-world setting outside the laboratory. To see if this might be the case, they analyzed viewers’ reactions to talks on TED.com. After watching a video, viewers on the site can select up to three adjectives (out of fourteen) to describe their opinions of the talk. Proudfoot and colleagues analyzed the adjectives applied to the one-hundred most viewed online TED talks. The number of viewers for each talk ranged from three million to thirty million views.

The data that the researchers were most interested in was the percentage of viewers that applied the adjective “ingenious” to a talk, since it was the adjective most closely aligned with creativity. Overall, a higher percentage of viewers selected the word “ingenious” to describe the talks that had been given by male speakers. One explanation for these results is that men and women differed in the kinds of topics they spoke about. To examine this possibility, the researchers analyzed the data again within each of TED.com’s six most popular topics: technology, entertainment, design, business, science, and global issues. Looking at the data in this way showed that the bias towards describing men’s talks as “ingenious” remained for all topics except for one: design.

Why would the bias towards seeing men as more creative fail to show up when it comes to design or fashion design? One possible explanation is that people may believe that women are just as likely to possess the kind of creative thinking needed to excel in design. In fact, perhaps it is the way that we define creativity in a particular domain that determines whether we’re likely to be biased towards one gender or the other. Proudfoot and colleagues found that people’s general beliefs about what it takes to “think creatively” show substantial overlap with traits we more closely associate with men, such as competitiveness, self-reliance, and risk-taking. Future studies may want to look at whether explicitly defining creativity in terms of more stereotypically feminine traits reduces, or even reverses, the bias towards men.

Clearly, the impact of gender on perceived creativity has potential implications for how women are seen in the workplace. Proudfoot et al. ran a different study that looked at data collected about one-hundred and thirty-four senior-level executives enrolled in an MBA program.  As part of the curriculum, each executive was anonymously evaluated by their supervisors and direct reports on several dimensions, including perceived innovativeness. Looking at the evaluations in terms of gender revealed that the female executives were judged by their supervisors as less innovative in their thinking compared to the male executives. There were no differences in the ratings of innovativeness by direct reports. Past research has shown that people in high-power positions are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others compared to those in low-power positions. Therefore, it makes sense that supervisors, and not direct reports, showed the bias. If the results from this study can be generalized to other settings, then women may be at an unfair disadvantage in workplaces where people at the top place a high degree of emphasis on creative and innovative thinking.

Although the findings from this research are potentially the most damaging for women, they have important implications for everyone. Most of us would be reluctant to admit any tendency to evaluate a potentially innovative idea as less so simply because it was generated by a woman. However, if we do possess such a bias, it may cause us to overlook an important idea that has the potential to change our lives for the better.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. Gareth, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, is the series editor of Best American Infographics and can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter 

@garethideas.

Daisy Grewal holds a B.A. in psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Ph.D. in social psychology from Yale University. She is a research scientist on the people analytics team at Intuit in Mountain View, Calif.

More by Daisy Grewal

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe