How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates
The current study examines how intersecting stereotypes about gender and race influence faculty perceptions of post-doctoral candidates in STEM fields in the United States. Using a fully-crossed, between-subjects experimental design, biology and physics professors (n = 251) from eight large, public, U.S. research universities were asked to read one of eight identical curriculum vitae (CVs) depicting a hypothetical doctoral graduate applying for a post-doctoral position in their field, and rate them for competence, hireability, and likeability. The candidate’s name on the CV was used to manipulate race (Asian, Black, Latinx, and White) and gender (female or male), with all other aspects of the CV held constant across conditions. Faculty in physics exhibited a gender bias favoring the male candidates as more competent and more hirable than the otherwise identical female candidates. Further, physics faculty rated Asian and White candidates as more competent and hirable than Black and Latinx candidates, while those in biology rated Asian candidates as more competent and hirable than Black candidates, and as more hireable than Latinx candidates. An interaction between candidate gender and race emerged for those in physics, whereby Black women and Latinx women and men candidates were rated the lowest in hireability compared to all others. Women were rated more likeable than men candidates across departments. Our results highlight how understanding the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in STEM requires examining both racial and gender biases as well as how they intersect.
KeywordsSTEM Prejudice Gender gap Racial discrimination Academic settings Intersectionality
The authors want to give a special thanks to Hannah Schindler and Natalia Gutierrez who aided in the intensive data collection process for the current study, and Natalia Martinez for her help assembling the final submission.
Funding for the present study was provided by the FIU Mine Üçer Women in Science Fund.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Asia A. Eaton declares no conflict of interest. Jessica F. Saunders declares no conflict of interest. Ryan K. Jacobson declares no conflict of interest. Keon West declares no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2018). Negative gender ideologies and gender-science stereotypes are more pervasive in male-dominated academic disciplines. Social Sciences. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7020027.
- Blaine, B. E. (2013). Understanding race, racial stereotypes, and racism. In B. E. Blaine (Ed.), Understanding the psychology of diversity (2nd ed., pp. 87–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Bodenhausen, G. V., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: The state of the science (pp. 341–383). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Byars-Winston, A., Gutierrez, B., Topp, S., & Carnes, M. (2011). Integrating theory and practice to increase scientific workforce diversity: A framework for career development in graduate research training. CBE Life Science Education, 10, 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0145.Google Scholar
- Catalyst. (2018). Quick take: Women in the workforce—United States. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-united-states/ .Google Scholar
- Catalyst. (2019). Quick take: Women in government. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-government/ .Google Scholar
- Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. National Academy of Sciences, 108, 792–799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(8), 139–167.Google Scholar
- 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(10), 1171–1188.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000002.
- Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents' socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x.Google Scholar
- Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3518.104.22.1688.Google Scholar
- Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913481364
- Gupta, A., Leong, F. T. L., & Szymanski, D. M. (2011). The “model minority myth”: Internalized racialism of positive stereotypes as correlates of psychological distress, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024183.Google Scholar
- Ho, C., & Jackson, J. W. (2001). Attitudes toward Asian Americans: Theory and measurement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(8), 1553–1581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02742.x.Google Scholar
- Ivie, R. (2018). Beyond representation: Data to improve the situation of women and minorities in physics and astronomy [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved February 26, 2019 from https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/women/beyond-representation-18.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Kodel, C. (2017). Examining faculty diversity at American’s top public universities. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/10/05/examining-faculty-diversity-at-americas-top-public-universities/.
- Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. In American community survey reports, ACS-24. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
- McIntosh, P. (1985). Feeling like a Fraud. Work in Progress Paper No. 18. Wellesley, MA: The Stone Center. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.texaspsyc.org/resource/collection/DEA29D8E-42EF-49CC-AB4B-24E66374E299/McIntosh%20-%20Feeling%20like%20a%20Fraud.pdf.
- 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. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2009). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering and mathematics faculty. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Retrieved on January 4, 2017 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2014). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Retrieved on September 7, 2016 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308.
- National Science Foundation. (2017a). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. Retrieved on August 8, 2018 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/static/report/nsf17306.pdf.
- National Science Foundation. (2017b). ADVANCE Program Information. Retrieved on August 8, 2018 from https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=243511&org=NSF&from=news.
- National Science Foundation. (2018). Doctoral sciences and engineers in academia. Retrieved on August 8, 2018 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/academic-research-and-development/doctoral-scientists-and-engineers-in-academia.Google Scholar
- Paustian-Underdahl, S., Eaton, A. A., Mandeville, A., & Little, L. (2019). Pushed out or opting out? Integrating perspectives on gender differences in withdrawal attitudes during pregnancy. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000394.
- Pew. (2018). 7 facts about the STEM workforce. Retrieved on August 8, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/09/7-facts-about-the-stem-workforce/.
- Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008.Google Scholar
- Sax, L. J., Lehman, K. J., Barthelemy, R. S., & Lim, G. (2016). Women in physics: A comparison to science, technology, engineering and math education over four decades. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020108.Google Scholar
- 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(11–12), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0.Google Scholar
- Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-Barba, S., … Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 591–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031495.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332.
- Tomkiewicz, J., & Bass, K. (2008). Differences between male students' and female students' perception of professors. College Student Journal, 42(2), 422–430.Google Scholar
- Treiman, D. J. (2009). Quantitative data analysis: Doing social research to test ideas. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Publisher.Google Scholar
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Decennial census of population and housing. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade.2010.html.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Table 318.45. Number and percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of degree/certificate, and sex of student: 2008–09 through 2015–16. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_318.45.asp.
- U.S. Department of Education. (2018). National Center for Education Statistics. The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018–144), Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61.
- United States Executive Office of the President/Office of Personnel Management/Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2016). Reducing the impact of bias in the STEM workforce: Strengthening excellence and innovation. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from https://www.si.edu/content/OEEMA/OSTP-OPM_ReportDigest.pdf.Google Scholar
- Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037461
- Watt, H. M. G., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J., Morris, Z. A., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017). Mathematics- a critical filter for STEM-related career choices? A longitudinal examination among Australian and US adolescents. Sex Roles, 77(3–4), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1.Google Scholar
- White House. (2018). Summary of the 2018 white House state-federal STEM education summit. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved August 7, 2018 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Summary-of-the-2018-White-House-State-Federal-STEM-Education-Summit.pdf.
- Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(17), 5360–5365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112/-/DCSupplemental.Google Scholar
- Williams, J. C., & Dempsey, R. (2014). What works for women at work: Four patterns working women need to know. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. Hastings, CA. Center for WorkLife Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.Google Scholar
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 629–667). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Wright, D., Eaton, A. A., & Skagerberg, E. (2015). Occupational segregation and psychological gender differences: How empathizing and systemizing help explain the distribution of men and women into (some) occupations. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.004.Google Scholar