Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 377–397 | Cite as

The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM

  • Laura R. RamseyEmail author
  • Diana E. Betz
  • Denise Sekaquaptewa


Academic environments can feel unwelcoming for women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Two studies examined academic environments of female undergraduates majoring in STEM fields at a university in the United States. In Study 1, we compared women in STEM who are in a welcoming environment to those in a traditional STEM environment in order to identify factors that may make environments seem welcoming to women. Women in the welcoming environment received more messages about women in STEM, were more likely to wear or carry markers of their major, and had more peer role models in STEM. In Study 2, we developed an intervention based on these factors to improve women’s implicit beliefs about their participation in STEM. In a sample of women in traditional STEM environments, we manipulated exposure to the intervention and the self-relevance of the intervention. The intervention decreased stereotyping concerns and indirect STEM stereotyping, and it increased implicit STEM identification when the intervention was made self-relevant. This research demonstrates the importance of a welcoming academic environment for women in STEM, and it also provides a model for how key elements of intensive university programs targeting women can be translated into a more general approach that reaches a wider audience.


Self Implicit attitudes Women Science Stereotype Identity 



This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Center for Institutional Diversity at the University of Michigan. The authors wish to thank Kathy Totz for her assistance in collecting data used in this research, as well as the members and administrators of the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) program at the University of Michigan.


  1. Ambady, N., Paik, S. K., Steele, J., Owen-Smith, A., & Mitchell, J. P. (2004). Deflecting negative self-relevant stereotype activation: The effects of individuation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgari, S., Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire vs. deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 370–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2006). Differential teacher attention to boys and girls in the classroom. Educational Review, 58, 339–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, J. R. (1981). Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. J. (2008). Changing attitudes on implicit versus explicit measures: What is the difference? In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 285–326). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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, 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. (2010). Explaning underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57, 1825–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 656–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohn, S. (2000). Race and gender discrimination at work. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crocker, J., & Major, B. M. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edman, J. L., & Brazil, B. (2007). Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy, and academic success among community college students: An ethnic comparison. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 371–383.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, K. E., & McKelfresh, D. A. (2002). The impact of a living learning center on students’ academic success and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 395–402.Google Scholar
  18. Eichstaedt, J., & Silvia, P. J. (2003). Noticing the self: Implicit assessment of self-focused attention using word recognition latencies. Social Cognition, 21, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farley, J. E. (2002). Contesting our everyday work lives: The retention of minority and working class sociology undergraduates. The Sociological Quarterly, 43, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gloria, A. M., & Ho, T. A. (2003). Environmental, social, and psychological experiences of Asian American undergraduates: Examining issues of academic persistence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.Google Scholar
  22. Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P., & Guerin, D. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammond, K. R. (1948). Measuring attitudes by error choice: An indirect method. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Han, A. H., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2006). The influence of experimentally created extrapersonal associations on the implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 259–272.Google Scholar
  29. Hathaway, R. S., Sharp, S., & Davis, C.-S. (2001). Programmatic efforts affect retention of women in science and engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 107–124.Google Scholar
  30. Huguet, P., & Régner, I. (2009). Counter-stereotypic beliefs in math do not protect school girls from stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1024–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 774–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelly, A. (1988). Gender differences in pupil-teacher interactions: A meta-analytic review. Research in Education, 39, 1–24.Google Scholar
  35. Kuçera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American english. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKinney, J. P., McKinney, K. G., Franiuk, R., & Schweiter, J. (2006). The college classroom as a community: Impact on student learning. College Teaching, 54, 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1992). Teachers’ use of praise and reprimands to boys and girls. Educational Review, 44, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, 879–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math \(\ne \) me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). The interference of stereotype threat with women’s generation of mathematical problem-solving strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rios, D., Stewart, A. J., & Winter, D. G. (2010). “Thinking she could be the next president”: Why identifying with the curriculum matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenthal, L., London, B., Levy, S., & Lobel, M. (2011). The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles, 65, 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheats girls and boys and what we can do about it. ( Revised edition). New York: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
  49. Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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), 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Settles, I. H., Jellison, W. A., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Identification with multiple social groups: The moderating role of identity change over time among women-scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 856–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shapiro, J. R. (2011). Different groups, different threats: A multi-threat approach to the experience of stereotype threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, C. T., De Houwer, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Retrieved from
  57. Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting students’ intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living-learning programs among other social-cognitive factors. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 379–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept and professional goals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Szelenyi, K., & Inkelas, K. K. (2011). The role of living-learning programs in women’s plans to attend graduate school in STEM fields. Research in Higher Education, 52, 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thompson, D. E., Orr, B., Thompson, C., & Grover, K. (2007). Examining students’ perceptions of their first-semester experience at a major land-grant institution. College Student Journal, 41, 640–648.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura R. Ramsey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diana E. Betz
    • 2
  • Denise Sekaquaptewa
    • 2
  1. 1.Bridgewater State UniversityBridgewaterUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations