Gender Bias in Human Anatomy Textbook Illustrations

Bibliographic Data

ID12005262
AuthorsMita Giacomini (University of California, Davis, corresponding author), Patricia Rozée-Koker (Vanderbilt University), Fran Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell
Year1986
Volume10
Issue4
Pages413-420
Publication date1986-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychology of Women Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0361-6843 • E-ISSN: 1471-6402
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1111/j.1471-6402.1986.tb00765.x
OpenAlexW2110489130
LanguageEN
Citations received15
References cited8

The hypothesis that female and male bodies are equally represented in human anatomy text illustrations was tested to determine whether medical students are shown both females and males as possessing equally important and normal bodies in medical school instructional material. All anatomy texts currently in use in a major western medical school (N = 8) were surveyed. In text sections dealing with standard (non-gender-specific) anatomy, male subjects were shown in 64% of the illustrations in which gender was discernable, females were shown in 11%, and gender-neutral or equal representations were shown in 25%. Females and males were found to be represented approximately equally in chapters on urogenital (gender-specific) anatomy (45% female, 48% male, 7% neutral or equal representation). The implications of these findings for the perpetuation of sexist attitudes in the medical profession are discussed

Gender bias · Human anatomy · Medical education · Medical school · Representation (politics · Gender Roles and Identity Studies · Gender Studies in Language · Media, Gender, and Advertising · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Anatomy