skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702520acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information environments have the power to affect people's perceptions and behaviors. In this paper, we present the results of studies in which we characterize the gender bias present in image search results for a variety of occupations. We experimentally evaluate the effects of bias in image search results on the images people choose to represent those careers and on people's perceptions of the prevalence of men and women in each occupation. We find evidence for both stereotype exaggeration and systematic underrepresentation of women in search results. We also find that people rate search results higher when they are consistent with stereotypes for a career, and shifting the representation of gender in image search results can shift people's perceptions about real-world distributions. We also discuss tensions between desires for high-quality results and broader societal goals for equality of representation in this space.

References

  1. Arigbabu OA; Ahmad SMS, Adnan WAN, Yussof S, Iranmanesh V, Malallah, FL, Gender recognition on real world faces based on shape representation and neural network. ICCOINS 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Baker P, Potts A. "Why do white people have thin lips?" Google and the perpetuation of stereotypes via autocomplete search forms. Crit Disc St 10(2): 187--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Behm-Morawitz E, Mastro D. The Effects of the Sexualization of Female Video Game Characters on Gender Stereotyping and Female Self-Concept. Sex Roles 2009; 61(11--12): 808--823.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodenhausen GV, Wyer RS. Effects of stereotypes in decision making and information-processing strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985; 48(2): 267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Section 11. 5 February 2013. http://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2012/cpsaat11.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Coltrane S, Adams M. Work-family imagery and gender stereotypes: Television and the reproduction of difference. J Vocat Behav 1997; 50(2): 323--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Correll SJ. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. Am J Sociol 2001; 106(6): 1691--1730.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Correll SJ. Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. Am Sociol Rev 2004; 69(1): 93--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Executive Office of the President. Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values. May 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman B, Nissenbaum H. Bias in computer systems. ACM T Inform Syst 1996; 14(3): 330--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, Signorielli N. Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on media effects 1986: 17--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Graves SB. Television and Prejudice Reduction: When Does Television as a Vicarious Experience Make a Difference? J Soc Issues 1999; 55(4): 707--727.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman P. New Partnership with LeanIn.org. InFocus by Getty Images. http://infocus.gettyimages.com/post/ new-partnership-with-leaninorg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpert JA, Wilson ML, Hickman JL. Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance appraisals. J Organ Behav 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Haslam SA, Turner JC, Oakes PJ, Reynolds KJ, Doosje, B From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the word: how shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In C McGarty, VY Yzerbyt, R Spears (eds.). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups 2002. Cambridge University Press, 157--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Heilman ME. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. J Soc Issues 2001; 57(4): 657--674.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Heilman ME. Okimoto, TG. 2008. Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. J Appl Psychol 2008; 93(1): 189--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilton JL, & Von Hippel W. Stereotypes. Annu Rev Psychol 1996; 47(1): 237--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hooper B. Porn star appears on cover of Thai math textbook. United Press International. http://upi.com/5031410787947Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Introna L, Nissenbaum H. Defining the web: The politics of search engines. Computer 2000; 33(1): 54--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jacobs J. Gender Inequality at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kammerer,Y, Gerjets P. How search engine users evaluate and select Web search results: The impact of the search engine interface on credibility assessments. Libr Inform Sci 2012; 4: 251--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Keane MT, O'Brien M, Smyth B. Are people biased in their use of search engines? Commun ACM 2008; 51(2): 49--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Khorsandi R, Abdel-Mottaleb M. Gender classification using 2-D ear images and sparse representation. 2013 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 461--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Lean In Foundation. Getty Image Collection. http://leanin.org/getty.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Makinen E, Raisamo R. Evaluation of Gender Classification Methods with Automatically Detected and Aligned Faces, IEEE T Pattern Anal 2008; 30(3): 541--547. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Massey D. Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller CC. 10 February 2014. LeanIn.org and Getty Aim to Change Women's Portrayal in Stock Photos. New York Times, B3. http://nyti.ms/1eLY7ijGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pariser E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. 2011. Penguin Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Potter WJ. Cultivation theory and research, Hum Commun Res 1993; 19(4): 564--601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Shan C. Learning local binary patterns for gender classification on real-world face images, Pattern Recogn Lett 2012; 33(4), 431--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shrum LJ. Assessing the Social Influence of Television A Social Cognition Perspective on Cultivation Effects. Commun Res 1995; 22(4): 402--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women's math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 1999; 35(1): 4--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Snyder M, Tanke ED, Berscheid E. Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol 1977; 35(9): 656--666.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweeney L. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Commun ACM 2013; 56(5): 44--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Tajfel H. Social stereotypes and social groups. In Turner JC, Giles H. Intergroup Behaviour 1981. Oxford: Blackwell. 144--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaughan L, Thelwall M. Search engine coverage bias: evidence and possible causes. Inform Process Manag 2004; 40(4): 693--707. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Williams D. Virtual Cultivation: Online Worlds, Offline Perceptions. J Commun 1996; 56(1): 69--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Word CO, Zanna MP, Cooper J. The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. J Exp Soc Psychol 1974; 10(2): 109--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. X Tang, K Liu, J Cui, F Wen, X Wang. IntentSearch: Capturing User Intention for One-Click Internet Image Search, IEEE T Pattern Anal 34(7): 1342--1353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zha ZJ, Yang L, Mei T, Wang M, Wang Z, Chua TS, Hua XS. 2010. Visual query suggestion: Towards capturing user intent in internet image search. ACM T Multim Comput 2010; 6(3): a13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader