The Fragility of Scientific Knowledge: A Case Study on the Miscitation of Findings on Gender Stereotypes

Abstract Miscitation of research findings is a common problem as evidenced by 19% of citations in top psychology journals being in error (Cobb et al., American Psychologist, 79:299–311, 2024). Such errors interfere with the orderly cumulation of knowledge. Providing a case study, this research examines the citations of a recent and highly cited article on gender stereotypes (Eagly et al., American Psychologist, 75:301–315, 2020), which found that communion, agency, and competence stereotypes each showed a distinctive trend over time. Analysis of the 751 documents that cited this article’s findings showed that overall, 59% of citations were accurate and 9% somewhat accurate, yet a surprisingly high rate of 32% were inaccurate. These inaccuracies most often misrepresented findings on agency with 37% of the citing articles being inaccurate, and among these inaccurate citations, 21% directly contradicted the findings by erroneously stating that the tendency to ascribe agency more to men than women had faded over time. Miscitations for the two other stereotype domains were less egregious. Of the communion citations, 25% ignored that the tendency to ascribe communion more to women than men has become stronger over time. Of the competence citations, 18% ignored that most people in recent years believe that women and men are equally competent. The discussion considers possible reasons for misciting findings on gender stereotypes, particularly for the agency stereotype that has favored men over women ever since the 1940s. We further expound on the feminist theme of the fragility of scientific knowledge, especially when research findings compete with preconceptions that people, including researchers, may have about the phenomena of gender.