Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 11–12, pp 621–632 | Cite as

The Importance of Knowing your History: Perceiving Past Women as less Agentic than Contemporary Women Predicts Impaired Quantitative Performance

  • Nida Bikmen
  • Mary Abbott Torrence
  • Victoria Krumholtz
Original Article
  • 147 Downloads

Abstract

Research on dynamic stereotypes of women has shown that women perceive large differences between contemporary women and women who lived in the past in terms of agentic (or masculine) traits. This temporal discrepancy in agentic attributes of women may suggest that agency is not a stable trait of women and may result in impaired performance in domains associated with agency, such as quantitative reasoning. We propose that women who think that agency has always characterized their gender group would perform better in quantitative tasks. Indeed, we found that as the difference between agency attributed to present and past women decreased, U.S. college women’s (n = 80) accuracy in a quantitative test increased (Study 1). Further, reading a text about women’s achievements in the history of science reduced the discrepancy between agency attributed to past and present women and had an indirect positive effect on quantitative performance by 150 U.S. college women (Study 2). Findings suggest that women’s participation and performance in science could be improved by raising awareness of women’s historical achievements in male-dominated areas.

Keywords

Dynamic stereotypes Identity continuity Agency Psychological essentialism Stereotype threat 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Kay Deaux for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors, Nida Bikmen, Mary Abbott Torrence, and Victoria Krumholtz declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the revised manuscript titled “The importance of knowing your history: Perceiving past women as less agentic than contemporary women predicts impaired quantitative performance” and submitted to Sex Roles for publication. The two studies reported in the manuscript were approved by Denison University, Department of Psychology Human Subjects Review Board. The informed consent documents for the two studies will be made available upon request. No funding was received for conducting the research.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_904_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 40 kb)

References

  1. Aronson, J., Jannone, S., McGlone, M., & Johnson-Campbell, T. (2009). The Obama effect: An experimental test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 957–960.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Disentangling the sum of the parts. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikmen, N. (2015). History as a resource: Effects of constructions of group history on intellectual performance. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 309–323.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L., & Newman, G. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891–908.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, M. J., Lalonde, C. E., Sokol, B. W., & Hallett, D. (2003). Personal persistence, identity development, and suicide: A study of native and non-native north American adolescents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 273, 68(2), i-138. Google Scholar
  7. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cott, N. F. (Ed.). (2000). No small courage: A history of women in the United States. New York. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, J. H., & Smith, J. F. (2016, April 21). Get to know the historical figures on the $5, $10, and $20 bills. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/us/mlk-eleanor-roosevelt-susan-anthony.html
  10. Des Jardins, J. (2010). The Madame curie complex: The hidden history of women in science. New York, NY: The Feminist Press at CUNY.Google Scholar
  11. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diekman, A. B., Goodfriend, W., & Goodwin, S. (2004). Dynamic stereotypes of power: Perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies. Sex Roles, 50, 201–215.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000015552.22775.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doosje, B., Brancombe, N., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gresky, D. M., Ten Eyck, L. L., Lord, C. G., & McIntyre, R. B. (2005). Effects of salient multiple identities on women’s performance under mathematics stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 53, 703–716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7735-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2017). The times they are a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., Harrison, K., Cassidy, C., Bull, R., & Levine, M. (2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 776–788.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jetten, J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). The past as a determinant of the present: Historical continuity, collective angst, and opposition to immigration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 442–450.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 686–702.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landau, M. J., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2008). The never-ending story: A terror management perspective on the psychological function of self-continuity. In F. Sani (Ed.), Self continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 87–100). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., … Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarachical (multicomponent) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Leeuwen, E., & Tauber, S. (2012). Outgroup helping as a tool to communicate ingroup warmth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 772–783.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211436253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy, S., Stroessner, S., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 537–556.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X27162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Marx, D. M., & Ko, S. J. (2012). Superstars “like” me: The effect of role model similarity on performance under threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 807–812.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1183–1193.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McIntyre, R., Paulson, R. M., & Lord, C. G. (2003). Alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat through the salience of group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00513-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntyre, R. B., Lord, C. G., Gresky, D. M., Eyck, L. L. T., Frye, G. D. J., & Bond, C. F. (2005). A social impact trend in the effects of role models on alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.10.9.html.
  33. Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development across cultures. Psychological Review, 111, 960–983.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosnaidou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., & Postmes, T. (2012). Who we were and who we will be: The temporal context of women’s in-group stereotype content. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 346–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02013.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotype and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 169–180.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037944.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips, P. (1990). The scientific lady: A social history of women’s scientific interests, 1520–1918. New York. NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  39. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01675.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Reicher, S. (2008). Making a past fit for the future: The political and ontological dimensions of historical continuity. In F. Sani (Ed.), Self continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rios, D., Stewart, A. J., & Winter, D. (2010). “Thinking she could be the next president”: Why identifying with the curriculum matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 328–338.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01578.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rossiter, M. (1982). Women scientists in America, struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Şemin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction, and social cognition (pp. 11–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Sani, F., Bowe, M., Herrera, M., Manna, C., Cossa, T., Miao, X., … Zhou, Y. (2007). Perceived collective continuity: Seeing groups as entities that move through time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1118–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835–850.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smeekes, A., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). Perceived group continuity, collective self-continuity, and ingroup identification. Self and Identity, 13, 663–680.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.898685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–437.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Spoor, J. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2011). “Things are getting better” isn’t always better: Considering women’s progress affects perceptions of and reactions to contemporary gender inequality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 24–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2010.539948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. T. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  56. Wakefield, J. R. H., Hopkins, N., & Greenwood, R. M. (2012). Thanks, but no thanks: Women’s avoidance of help-seeking in the context of a dependency-related stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 423–431.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312457659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA
  2. 2.Gaston College Preparatory High School, KIPPGastonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyXavier UniversityCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations