Toward Gender Understanding: Examining Ambivalent Sexism among University Students and Its Impact on Faculty Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study's results contribute to the existing literature by confirming and extending the understanding of gender differences in sexist attitudes among university students.

The study's findings suggest that, despite differences in overall levels of sexism between men and women, both genders tend to align in evaluating specific behaviors in teaching faculty. This aligns with the hypothesis and emphasizes the importance of examining context-specific evaluations, as individuals may demonstrate similar perceptions in specific situations despite broader variations in their overall attitudes.

The study supports the variability hypothesis, indicating greater variability in sexist attitudes among men than women. This finding is consistent with the broader literature suggesting that men often exhibit greater variability in various cognitive and behavioral traits. The study contributes valuable insights by extending this concept to the domain of sexist attitudes.

The theoretical framework provided in the introduction offers a comprehensive understanding of sexism, particularly through the lens of ambivalent sexism. The incorporation of the variability hypothesis and the acknowledgment of the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate enrich the theoretical foundation of the study. The discussion of contemporary perspectives, such as the biosocial and life history models, reflects an awareness of the evolving nature of gender studies.

The methodology section provides a detailed account of the participants, materials, and procedures employed in the study. The use of established scales, reliability analysis, and statistical tests enhances the study's methodological rigor. However, the absence of specific information about participant demographics (e.g., age distribution) may limit the generalizability of the findings.

The results section effectively presents key findings through descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, and multivariate tests. The use of visual aids, such as the HJ-Biplot, enhances the clarity of the results presentation. The discussion section engages with the results, highlighting the significance of the study's contributions to existing literature. The acknowledgment of the limitations and potential avenues for future research demonstrates a reflective approach.

This article makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of gender differences in ambivalent sexism among university students and its impact on the evaluation of faculty behaviors. The study's robust methodology, theoretical framework, and insightful results provide a foundation for further research in the field of gender studies.

The overall English in the article is generally good, with clear and coherent expression. However, there are some areas where language and style could be refined for improved clarity and flow. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

1. Abstract--

   • Sentence: "The implications of these findings are discussed in both theoretical and practical contexts."
     • Suggestion: Consider specifying the theoretical and practical implications briefly for added clarity.

2. Introduction--

   • Sentence: "Given the importance of higher education in shaping future professionals and leaders, understanding gender dynamics in this environment is crucial."

     • Suggestion: This sentence could be rephrased for smoother flow, such as "Understanding gender dynamics in higher education is crucial for shaping future professionals and leaders."

3.  

4. Hypotheses Section--

   • Sentence: "H1: Men are expected to exhibit sexist attitudes to a greater extent than women."

     • Suggestion: While technically correct, consider rephrasing for a smoother flow, like "H1: Men are anticipated to display higher levels of sexist attitudes than women."

5. Theoretical Framework--

   • Sentence: "This perspective responds to recent studies suggesting that structural differences in the brain between genders are better explained as heterogeneity rather than associated with gender."
     • Suggestion: Clarify the phrase "better explained as heterogeneity," as it may be unclear to some readers.

6. Materials and Methods--

   • Sentence: "Participation was voluntary and anonymous."
     • Suggestion: Consider specifying that participation was both voluntary and confidential for clarity.

7. Results--

   • Sentence: "The highest means on the items did not exceed 2.5 points (remembering that it was a scale from 0 to 5)."
     • Suggestion: Consider rephrasing for conciseness, like "The highest mean scores did not exceed 2.5 on a 0 to 5 scale."

8. Discussion--

   • Sentence: "Although this data is initially positive, there are still cases with high scores, indicating that there is work to be done."
     • Suggestion: Use "these data" instead of "this data" for correct plural agreement.

9. Conclusion--

   • Sentence: "The data obtained contribute to the ongoing discussion on gender dynamics and sexism within academic settings."
     • Suggestion: Consider rephrasing for a more impactful conclusion, such as "The obtained data enriches the ongoing discourse on gender dynamics and sexism in academic settings."

Overall, the English is good, and the suggested improvements are minor for fine-tuning the expression.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your feedback. Attached you will find the modified version of the article where we have incorporated all your valuable observations. However, if you notice any omissions or further changes required, please feel free to let us know.

Best regards, 

The autors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on the topic of your research. To help and contribute to the improvement of your manuscript, see the attached document with detailed comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your feedback. Attached you will find a list outlining the suggested changes rather than the modified version of the article. If you notice any omissions or further adjustments needed, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Best regards,

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The text was improved very much. The authors accepted the majority of the suggestions and justified well other ones. There are still some weak points, namely concerned with differences in brain structure, which need stronger scientific support from brain sciences literature.

When expressions related to literature or “several studies” are mentioned, at least one reference is needed.

The topic is extremely important and the instruments for data collection used in the study are robust. The methodology continues to present some weaknesses due to the short description of steps and procedures.

For more detailed points to reanalyze, see the highlighted in manuscript V2 attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank both Editor and reviewers for their time devoted and the further comments made on the second round of review. A revised version with tack changes has been uploaded indicating only the new modifications to facilitate the review.

The revised version offers more references and further explanations on the brain structures that are different between sexes, as well as how this structures should not be considered as causal forces in the different behaviors, trying to highlight the more complex scenario in which biological, cultural and environmental variables should be considered.

Also, sections 2.1 (Participants and procedure) and 2.3 (procedure) offered complementary information. The have been unified in a single section 2.1 (Participants and procedure) to offer all the information in the same place. Some more detail has been included in how the participants were selected.

We had some difficulties trying to infer what the reviewer expected us to improve in the discussion, where some sentences were highlighted but no comments were included. We did our best to include minor clarifications and some supporting references in those parts.

Regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx