Publications

Highlighted Publications

Gender Stereotypicality in Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Do people prefer artificial intelligence (AI) to align with gender stereotypes? Examples like Apple’s feminine-voiced Siri offering general assistance and IBM’s masculine-voiced Watson handling medical decisions suggest that people use gender as a salient organizing principle to make sense of AI. Research indicates that even non-human entities like numbers, robots, and AI are perceived through a human-gender lens (Nass et al., 1997; Wilkie & Bodenhausen, 2015). However, it remains unclear whether and when people prefer gender stereotypicality in AI and how this preference affects their choices. This work explores these questions, leveraging AI as a unique context removed from the social and biological factors shaping human gender roles.

 

In Spielmann & Stern (2024), we found that people preferred gender stereotypicality (over counterstereotypicality and androgyny) in voice-based AI when seeking help (e.g., preferring feminine voices to answer questions in feminine domains; Studies 1a-1b); these biases were larger when using zero-sum (vs. non-zero-sum) measures (Study 2) and when judging human (vs. AI) targets (Study 3). Lastly, people were more likely to request (vs. decline) assistance from gender stereotypical (vs. counterstereotypical) human targets, but this choice bias did not extend to AI targets (Study 4). These studies offer nuanced insights into conditions under which people use gender stereotypes to evaluate human and non-human entities.


Image depicts R2D2; by LJ

Palliative Function of Ideology Across Social Status Groups

The endorsement of ideologies supporting the status quo is theorized to provide a

psychological buffer against the negative effects of societal injustices, a concept known as the “palliative function of ideology.” Rooted in system justification theory, this idea posits that perceiving societal arrangements as fair and legitimate can reduce negative affect and enhance subjective well-being, even among disadvantaged groups. This theoretical framework also predicts that the benefits of system-justifying ideologies should differ based on social status, with competing theoretical intuitions arguing that this effect should be stronger (or weaker) for those who are objectively doing socioeconomically worse.

 

My colleagues and I examined the theoretical tenets of system-justification theory in a comprehensive meta-analytic study (Vargas Salfate, Spielmann, & Briley, 2024) investigating these claims by analyzing over 1,600 studies with data from nearly two million participants across 121 countries. We found a small positive correlation (r = .07) between system-justifying ideologies and well-being, but no evidence for the moderating role of social status. These findings challenge aspects of system justification theory, suggesting that while system-justifying beliefs may slightly enhance well-being, they do not exhibit the predicted social status-dependent patterns. This research highlights the complexities of ideology’s role in psychological well-being and underscores the need for further exploration of tenets of system justification theory.


Image depicts wooden letters spelling "politics"; by WOKANDAPIX

Mental Health Contributors among Chinese Transgender People

Transgender individuals face elevated risks for mental health challenges, often stemming from social hurdles such as discrimination and lack of support. My colleagues and I explored these dynamics in a non-WEIRD context, focusing on a large sample of Chinese transgender individuals (N = 1,106) (Spielmann, Feng, Briley, & Stern, 2022). The study examined how school-based discrimination and environmental support influence mental health and self-harm, considering gender (transgender men vs. women) and identity disclosure as moderators.


Findings revealed that school discrimination was associated with worse mental health and increased self-harm, while environmental support improved mental health but did not significantly impact self-harm. The associations did not differ substantially based on gender or disclosure status, suggesting that the mental health dynamics observed in WEIRD contexts may not fully apply in non-WEIRD settings like China. This research underscores the importance of reducing discrimination and adapting support interventions to cultural contexts.


Image depicts hands holding each other; by freepik

List of Publications

Spielmann, J. & Stern, C. (2024). Preferences for Gender Stereotypicality in Artificial Intelligence: Existence, Comparison to Human Biases, and Implications for Choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241307276

Vargas Salfate, S., Spielmann, J., & Briley, D. A. (2024). Supporting the Status Quo is Weakly Associated With Subjective Wellbeing: A Comparison of The Palliative Function of Ideology Across Social Status Groups Using a Meta-Analytic Approach. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000446

Vial, A. C. & Spielmann, J. The social psychology of gender: From basic cognition to broad social structure. In Stern, C. (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Social Psychology. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chapter forthcoming. 

Spielmann, J.*, Roy, H.J.*, Ayoub, M., Chen, Y., Eckland, N., Trautwein, U., Zheng, A., & Roberts, B. (2022). In-depth review of conscientiousness and educational issues. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2745-2781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09693-2

Spielmann, J.*, Kroeper, K. M.*, Fox Tree, J. E., Lleras, A. (2022). Introduction to the Special Issue on the Impact of Race on Psychological Processes. Translational Issues of Psychological Science, 7(4), 357-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000308

Spielmann, J.*, Feng, S.*, Briley, D. A., & Stern, C. (2021). Mental health contributors among transgender people in a non-WEIRD society: Evidence from China. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(3), 747-757. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039388

Spielmann, J. & Stern, C. (2021). Gender transition shapes perceived sexual orientation. Self and Identity, 20(4), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1614976