Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 3–4, pp 95–109

But You Don’t Look Like A Scientist!: Women Scientists with Feminine Appearance are Deemed Less Likely to be Scientists

  • Sarah Banchefsky
  • Jacob Westfall
  • Bernadette Park
  • Charles M. Judd
Original Article

Abstract

Two studies examined whether subtle variations in feminine appearance erroneously convey a woman’s likelihood of being a scientist. Eighty photos (half women) of tenured/tenure-track science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) faculty at elite research universities were selected from the Internet. Participants, naïve to the targets’ occupations, rated the photos on femininity and likelihood of being a scientist and an early childhood educator. Linear mixed model analysis treated both participants and stimuli as random factors, enabling generalization to other samples of participants and other samples of stimuli. Feminine appearance affected career judgments for female scientists (with increasing femininity decreasing the perceived likelihood of being a scientist and increasing the perceived likelihood of being an early childhood educator), but had no effect on judgments of male scientists. Study 2 replicated these findings with several key procedural modifications: the presentation of the stimuli was manipulated to either be blocked by gender or completely randomized, questions pertaining to the stimuli’s appearance were removed, and a third career judgment likelihood rating was added to avoid tradeoffs between scientist and early childhood educator. In both studies, results suggest that for women pursuing STEM, feminine appearance may erroneously signal that they are not well suited for science.

Keywords

Gendered appearance Stereotypes Femininity Face perception Physical appearance Science STEM Sexism 

References

  1. Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bafumi, J., & Gelman, A. E. (2006). Fitting multilevel models when predictors and group effects correlate. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:125243
  4. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 2(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2015). Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betz, D. (2012, September 11). The trouble with Barbie science. Scientific American. Retrieved from scientificamerican.com.Google Scholar
  8. Betz, D. E., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 738–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., Sadler, M. S., & Jenkins, C. (2002). The role of Afrocentric features in person perception: Judging by features and categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 5–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Chapleau, K. M. (2004a). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentence. Psychological Science, 15(10), 674–679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Fallman, J. L. (2004b). The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 763–778.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Blair, I. V., Chapleau, K. M., & Judd, C. M. (2005). The use of Afrocentric features as cues for judgment in the presence of diagnostic information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., & Melton, M. (2013). What’s it worth?: The economic value of college majors. Georgetown University Institutional Report. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/whatsitworth-complete.pdf
  14. Carpinella, C. M., & Johnson, K. L. (2013). Politics of the face: The role of sex-typicality in trait assessments of politicians. Social Cognition, 31(6), 770–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157–3162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng, C. (2008). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(3), 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheryan, S., Drury, B. J., & Vichayapai, M. (2012). Enduring influence of stereotypical computer science role models on women’s academic aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellemers, N., Van den Heuvel, H., Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman, H., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1992). The contribution of typical sex differences in facial maturity to sex role stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(4), 430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galinsky, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum, E. P., Sasaki, S. J., … Maddux, W. W. (2015). Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 742–748.Google Scholar
  29. Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low and high status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hahn, A., Banchefsky, S., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies positive and negative aspects of emphasizing versus looking beyond group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1646–1664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices: Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2008). How undergraduate engineering students perceive women’s (and men’s) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex Roles, 58, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hehman, E., Carpinella, C. M., Johnson, K. L., Leitner, J. B., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hewlett, S., Luce, C., Servon, L., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., … Sumberg, K (2008). The Athena factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and technology. Watertown: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  36. Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. (2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 616–626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Khazan, O. (2012, June 22). E.U.’s ‘Science, it’s a girl thing’ campaign sparks a backlash. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com
  41. Kievit, R., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: A practical guide. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
  42. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15–311. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
  46. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., … Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884–887.Google Scholar
  47. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Adaptive centering with random effects: An alternative to the fixed effects model for studying time-varying treatments in school settings. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 468–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhoton, L. A. (2011). Distancing as a gendered barrier understanding women scientists’ gender practices. Gender and Society, 25(6), 696–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). If you’re looking at the cell means, you’re not looking at only the interaction (unless all main effects are zero). Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 574–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sczesny, S., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-stereotypic physical appearance: Consequences for the assessment of leadership competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  55. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tenenbaum, R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent–child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 34–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Wells, G., & Windschitl, P. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2020–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 635–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Zamon, R. (2015, August 4). #ILookLikeAnEngineer reminds us that anyone can (and should) be an engineer. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/04/ilooklikeanengineer_n_7934098.html
  65. Zebrowitz, L. A., Tenenbaum, D. R., & Goldstein, L. H. (1991). The impact of job applicants’ facial maturity, gender, and academic achievement on hiring recommendations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(7), 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Banchefsky
    • 1
  • Jacob Westfall
    • 2
  • Bernadette Park
    • 1
  • Charles M. Judd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and NeuroscienceUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations