People tend to react less positively to findings or real-life situations (such as male- or female-dominated careers) when these favour males over females. To explore the reasons for this response, we conducted five studies. In Studies 1 (Western sample) and 2 (mostly Malaysian sample), we examined four independent variables—favoured sex, lead researcher sex, impact of sex-differences research, and participant sex—in relation to participants’ reactions to fictitious research on sex differences in intelligence. Mediators (perceived harmfulness and need to protect the disfavoured sex) and moderators (women-are-wonderful effect and political orientation) were also examined, with Study 2 adding social dominance orientation into the mix. Studies 3 (Western sample) and 4 (mostly Malaysian sample) explored the influence of favoured sex, sex-specific hurdles, and participant sex on reactions to the same fictitious research, using the same mediators and additional moderators, such as religiosity and feminist beliefs. Study 5, which included participants from South Africa, Poland, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Italy, and other countries, examined the effects of protagonist sex and age in a charity appeal, as well as participant sex, on donation willingness. While protagonist sex and age did not affect willingness to donate, female participants were generally more willing to donate than male participants. Overall, results indicate that participants reacted less positively to male�favouring sex differences research, especially if led by a male researcher, likely due to perceived harm to females. Certain groups—those with liberal political views, lower social dominance orientation, or a higher susceptibility to the women-are-wonderful effect—exhibited even less positive reactions. These findings support the greater-protectiveness-of-females (G-PROF) theory. Future research could further investigate the greater protectiveness of females across different contexts and continue to test whether differential reactions are driven by various types of perceived harm (e.g., tangible, non-physical, caused by a perpetrator, or naturally occurring, etc.).
Wong Xiu Ling (Sat,) studied this question.