Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The threat of sexism in a STEM educational setting: the moderating impacts of ethnicity and legitimacy beliefs on test performance

Abstract

Social identity threat has negative consequences for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The present study examined whether legitimacy beliefs—beliefs that status differences between men and women in STEM fields are fair—put women at risk for experiencing social identity threat and poorer performance on a difficult logic test. Legitimacy beliefs served as a risk factor for both women from ethnic groups that are overrepresented in STEM (e.g., Asian Americans and European Americans) and from ethnic groups that are underrepresented in STEM (African Americans and Latina Americans), albeit under different conditions. Among women from overrepresented ethnic groups, legitimacy beliefs were negatively related to test performance when explicit cues to sexism were present. However, among women from underrepresented ethnic groups, legitimacy beliefs were negatively related to test performance when explicit cues to sexism were absent. The present research points to the need for inclusion of ethnic diversity in studies of women in STEM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because ethnicity is confounded with institution (e.g., only Black/African American women attended the HBCU) it is impossible to completely disentangle the effects of ethnicity and institution. We conducted a hierarchical regression analyses predicting logic test performance in which the main effects of institution (dummy-coded), the sexism manipulation, and legitimacy beliefs were entered on Step 1, the two-way interactions were entered on Step 2, and the three-way interactions were entered on Step 3. Step 1 was significant, R 2 = .35, F (4, 236) = 31.50, p < .001. Compared to the participants at the PWI (M = 10.93), participants at both the HBCU (M = 7.27), β = −.32, p < .001, and the ethnically diverse public university (M = 5.34), β = −.61, p < .001, performed more poorly on the logic test. The main effects of the manipulation and legitimacy beliefs were not significant. Moreover, the addition of the two-way interactions at Step 2, and the three-way interactions at Step 3 were not significant.

  2. 2.

    In addition, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in which they were told that the logic test was indicative of ability in the fields of physics, biology, or English. However, this manipulation of academic domain did not have a significant effect, nor did it interact with any of the other variables. In debriefing, many participants expressed skepticism about the validity of this information.

References

  1. Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Steele, C. M. (2006). The detrimental effects of a suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 602–615.

  2. Beale, F. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New York: Signet.

  3. Blanton, H., Christie, C., & Dye, M. (2002). Social identity versus reference frame comparisons: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 253–267.

  4. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: APA Books.

  5. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.

  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. doi:10.1037/a0016239.

  7. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564.

  8. Eccles, J. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 195–201.

  9. Eliezer, D., Townsend, S. S., Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2011). System-justifying beliefs moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and resting blood pressure. Social Cognition, 29, 303–321.

  10. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127.

  11. Foster, M. D., Sloto, L., & Ruby, R. (2006). Responding to discrimination as a function of meritocracy beliefs and personal experiences: Testing the model of shattered assumptions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 401–411.

  12. Foster, M. D., & Tsarfati, E. M. (2005). The effects of meritocracy beliefs on women’s well-being after first-time gender discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1730–1738.

  13. Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670. doi:10.1177/0146167202288010.

  14. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51.

  15. Harrison, L. A., Stevens, C. M., Monty, A. N., & Coakley, C. A. (2006). The consequences of stereotype threat on the academic performance of White and non-White lower income college students. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 341–357.

  16. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010) Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women Report. American Association of University Women.

  17. Holleran, S. E., Whitehead, J., Schmader, T., & Mehl, M. R. (2011). Talking shop and shooting the breeze a study of workplace conversation and job disengagement among STEM faculty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 65–71.

  18. Hurtado, S., Eagan, M., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 553–579. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01714.x.

  19. 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.

  20. Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 467–481. doi:10.1037/a0018951.

  21. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

  22. Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes and women’s math performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women’s susceptibility to stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 825–832.

  23. Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373–404.

  24. Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in the context of multiple group memberships. Psychological Science, 13, 557–560. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00498.

  25. Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., O’Brien, L. T., & McCoy, S. K. (2007). Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: implications for self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1068–1086.

  26. Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421.

  27. Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). US: Academic Press.

  28. Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 34–50.

  29. Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664.

  30. 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, 16474–16479.

  31. 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.

  32. National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (NSF 13-304). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/start.cfm

  33. Nguyen, H. H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1344. doi:10.1037/a0012702.

  34. Nosek, B., Smyth, F., Sriram, N., Lindner, N., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593–10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106.

  35. O’Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 169–180.

  36. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4.

  37. Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Multiple social identities and stereotype threat: Imbalance, accessibility, and working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 949–966. doi:10.1037/a0014846.

  38. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440.

  39. 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. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0.

  40. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336.

  41. Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66, 175–183.

  42. Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M. (2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–647. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638.

  43. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  44. 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.

  45. 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, 34, 379–440.

  46. 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.

  47. Summers, L. H. (2005). Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from https://web.archive.org/web/20080130023006/http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

  48. Syed, M., & Chemers, M. M. (2011). Ethnic minorities and women in STEM: Casting a wide net to address a persistent social problem. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 435–441.

  49. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

  50. Tine, M., & Gotlieb, R. (2013). Gender-, race-, and income-based stereotype threat: The effects of multiple stigmatized aspects of identity on math performance and working memory function. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 353–376. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9224-8.

  51. Townsend, S. S., Major, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Mendes, W. B. (2010). Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one’s worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 933–947. doi:10.1037/a0020434.

  52. Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Grant from the National Science Foundation: HRD0936722.

Author information

Correspondence to Laurie T. O’Brien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Brien, L.T., Garcia, D.M., Adams, G. et al. The threat of sexism in a STEM educational setting: the moderating impacts of ethnicity and legitimacy beliefs on test performance. Soc Psychol Educ 18, 667–684 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9310-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social identity threat
  • STEM
  • Gender
  • Intersectionality
  • Legitimacy beliefs