Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–15 | Cite as

How Gender and Race Stereotypes Impact the Advancement of Scholars in STEM: Professors’ Biased Evaluations of Physics and Biology Post-Doctoral Candidates

  • Asia A. EatonEmail author
  • Jessica F. Saunders
  • Ryan K. Jacobson
  • Keon West
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

STEM Prejudice Gender gap Racial discrimination Academic settings Intersectionality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

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.

Ethical Approval

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.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1052_MOESM1_ESM.docx (9.9 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 10119 kb)

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.Google Scholar
  2. Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12(5), 385–390.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00371.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Barrantes, R., & Eaton, A. A. (2018). Sexual orientation and leadership suitability: How being a gay man affects perceptions of fit in gender-stereotyped positions. Sex Roles, 79(9–10), 549–564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0894-8.Google Scholar
  5. Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 427–448.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3.Google Scholar
  6. Berdahl, J. L., & Min, J.-A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for east Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 141–152.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027692.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Catalyst. (2019). Quick take: Women in government. Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-government/ .Google Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg2015.01532.Google Scholar
  15. Cheng, C. (1997). Are Asian American employees a model minority or just a minority? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886397333002.Google Scholar
  16. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69(1–2), 58–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x.Google Scholar
  17. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.Google Scholar
  18. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16, 541–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.Google Scholar
  21. Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2006). Thinking well of African Americans: Measuring complimentary stereotypes and negative prejudice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(3), 233–250.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2803_3.Google Scholar
  22. DeWall, C. N., Altermatt, T. W., & Thompson, H. (2005). Understanding the structure of stereotypes of women: Virtue and agency as dimensions distinguishing female subgroups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 396–405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00239.x.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64(9–10), 758–767.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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//0022-3514.82.6.878.Google Scholar
  29. Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312464203.Google Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081.Google Scholar
  34. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors. Science Education, 91(6), 847–876.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20223.Google Scholar
  35. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995). Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite. Social Forces, 74(2), 543–557.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2580491.Google Scholar
  39. Jimeno-Ingrum, D., Berdahl, J. L., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2009). Stereotypes of Latinos and whites: Do they guide evaluations in diverse work groups? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 158–164.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015508.Google Scholar
  40. Kellow, J. T., & Jones, B. D. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap: Reexamining the academic performance of African American high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 34(1), 94–120.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798407310537.Google Scholar
  41. Kennelly, I. (1999). That single-mother element: How white employers typify Black women. Gender & Society, 13(2), 168–192.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089124399013002002.Google Scholar
  42. 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/.
  43. 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
  44. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41, 63–76.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188990410106.Google Scholar
  45. Li, J. (2003). The core of Confucian learning. American Psychologist, 58(2), 146–147.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.2.146.Google Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. Metcalf, H., Russell, D., & Hill, C. (2018). Broadening the science of broadening participation in STEM through critical mixed methodologies and intersectionality frameworks. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(5), 580–599.  https://doi.org/10.11777/0002764218768872.Google Scholar
  48. Moss-Racusin, C., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Sanzari, C., Caluori, N., & Rabasco, H. (2018). Gender bias produces gender gaps in STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 79(11–12), 651–670.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0902-z.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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
  57. Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 817–831.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.817.Google Scholar
  58. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1125–1156.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410683.Google Scholar
  59. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053.Google Scholar
  60. 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.
  61. 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/.
  62. Pietri, E. S., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Guha, D., Roussos, G., Brescoll, V. L., … Handelsman, J. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 175–196.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316674721.Google Scholar
  63. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.Google Scholar
  64. Riegle-Crumb, C., & King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39, 656–664.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10391657.Google Scholar
  65. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192–202.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000027.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Schlomer, B. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal for Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Schuster, C., & Martiny, S. E. (2017). Not feeling good in STEM: Effects of stereotype activation and anticipated affect on women's career aspirations. Sex Roles, 76, 40–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3.Google Scholar
  71. Shaffer, E. S., Marx, D. M., & Prislin, R. (2013). Mind the gap: Framing of women’s success and representation in STEM affects women’s math performance under threat. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 454–463.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0252-1.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Smeding, A. (2012). Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles, 67(11–12), 617–629.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4.Google Scholar
  74. 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.
  75. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.Google Scholar
  76. Steinberg, J. R., Okun, M. A., & Aiken, L. S. (2012). Calculus GPA and math identification as moderators of stereotype threat in highly persistent women. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), 534–543.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.727319.Google Scholar
  77. Steinbugler, A. C., Press, J. E., & Johnson Dias, J. (2006). Gender, race and affirmative action operationalizing intersectionality in survey research. Gender & Society, 20(6), 805–825.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293299.Google Scholar
  78. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job candidates and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7–8), 509–528.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698.Google Scholar
  79. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 388–398.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.388.Google Scholar
  80. Tomkiewicz, J., & Bass, K. (2008). Differences between male students' and female students' perception of professors. College Student Journal, 42(2), 422–430.Google Scholar
  81. Torres, K. C., & Charles, C. Z. (2004). Metastereotypes and the Black-white divide: A qualitative view of race on an elite college campus. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(1), 115–149.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X0404007X.Google Scholar
  82. Treiman, D. J. (2009). Quantitative data analysis: Doing social research to test ideas. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Publisher.Google Scholar
  83. Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.89.Google Scholar
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. 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.
  87. 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
  88. Valencia, R. R., & Black, M. S. (2002). "Mexican Americans don't value education!"--on the basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 81–103.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0102_2.Google Scholar
  89. Wade, M. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2006). The structure of female subgroups: An exploration of ambivalent stereotypes. Sex Roles, 54(11–12), 753–765.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9043-x.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Walzer, A. S., & Czopp, A. M. (2011). Replications and refinements: Able but unintelligent: Including positively stereotyped Black subgroups in the stereotype content model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(5), 527–530.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.503250.Google Scholar
  92. 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
  93. Weyant, J. M. (2005). Implicit stereotyping of Hispanics: Development and validity of a Hispanic version of the implicit association test. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(3), 355–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986305276747.Google Scholar
  94. 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.
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. Wilson, T. C. (1996). Cohort and prejudice: Whites' attitudes toward blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 253–274.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297750.Google Scholar
  99. 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
  100. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asia A. Eaton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica F. Saunders
    • 2
  • Ryan K. Jacobson
    • 1
  • Keon West
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Women’s Research Institute of NevadaUniversity of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyGoldsmiths University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations