Advertisement

Raising Doubt in Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact

  • Juan M. Madera
  • Michelle R. Hebl
  • Heather Dial
  • Randi Martin
  • Virgina Valian
Original Paper

Abstract

The extent of gender bias in academia continues to be an object of inquiry, and recent research has begun to examine the particular gender biases emblematic in letters of recommendations. This current two-part study examines differences in the number of doubt raisers that are written in 624 authentic letters of recommendations for 174 men and women applying for eight assistant professor positions (study 1) and the impact of these doubt raisers on 305 university professors who provided evaluations of recommendation letters (study 2). The results show that both male and female recommenders use more doubt raisers in letters of recommendations for women compared to men and that the presence of certain types of doubt raisers in letters of recommendations results in negative outcomes for both genders. Since doubt raisers are more frequent in letters for women than men, women are at a disadvantage relative to men in their applications for academic positions. We discuss the implications and need for additional future research and practice that (1) raises awareness that letter writers are gatekeepers who can improve or hinder women’s progress and (2) develops methods to eliminate the skewed use of doubt raisers.

Keywords

Letters of recommendation Gender schemas Discrimination Sex roles Academia 

Notes

Funding Information

This paper was funded by an NIH Grant (1R01GM088530).

References

  1. Aamodt, M. G., Nagy, M. S., & Thompson, N. (1998). Employment references: Who are we talking about?, Paper presented at the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: Do metrics matter? Nature News, 465(7300), 860–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamo, S. A. (2013). Attrition of women in the biological sciences: Workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited. Bioscience, 63(1), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguirre Jr, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 27, Number 6. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104–1342.Google Scholar
  5. Aiston, S. J. (2014). Leading the academy or being led? Hong Kong women academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. APPIC (2005). Members survey: APPIC predoctoral internship members. http://www.APPIC.Org
  8. Applegate, B. K., Cable, C. R., & Sitren, A. H. (2009). Academia’s most wanted: The characteristics of desirable academic job candidates in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT1. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 137–153.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benson, T. A., & Buskist, W. (2005). Understanding “excellence in teaching” as assessed by psychology faculty search committees. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broughton, W., & Conlogue, W. (2001). What search committees want. Profession, 39–51.Google Scholar
  13. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665–692.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
  15. 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, 1532.Google Scholar
  16. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014a). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014b). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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(4), 413–423.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Crockett, W. H. (1988). Schemas, affect, and communication. In L. Donohew, H. Sypher, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect. Lawrence Erlbaum Association: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. Deo, M. E. (2014). Looking forward to diversity in legal academia. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 29(2), 352.Google Scholar
  22. Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2013). From bench to board: Gender differences in university scientists’ participation in corporate scientific advisory boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1443–1464.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 815–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dutt, K., Pfaff, D. L., Bernstein, A. F., Dillard, J. S., & Block, C. J. (2016). Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience. Nature Geoscience, 9(11), 805–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  28. Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maas, A., & Bovini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042037999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eveline, J. (2005). Woman in the ivory tower: Gendering feminised and masculinised identities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(6), 641–658.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510628558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728064006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fuerstman, D., & Lavertu, S. (2005). The academic hiring process: A survey of department chairs. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(4), 731–736.Google Scholar
  33. Gatewood, R., & Feild, H. (2001). Human resource selection: Application forms, training and experience evaluations, and reference checks (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Roche, M.Google Scholar
  34. Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  37. Hebl, M. R., Madera, J. M., & King, E. B. (2007). Exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance: Manifestation and solutions (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Hebl, M. R., Tickle, J., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl, & J. Hull’s (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hedricks, C. A., Robie, C., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Web-based multisource reference checking: An investigation of psychometric integrity and applied benefits. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  41. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 152–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S. (2016). Barriers to women leaders in academia: Tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Isaac, C., Chertoff, J., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2011). Do students’ and authors’ genders affect evaluations? A linguistic analysis of medical student performance evaluations. Academic Medicine, 86(1), 59–66.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318200561d.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, M., Elam, C., Edwards, J., Tayor, D., Heldberg, C., Hinkley, R., & Comeau, R. (1998). Medical school admission committee members’ evaluations of and impressions from recommendation letters. Academic Medicine, 73, S41–S43.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199810000-00040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaminski, D., & Geisler, C. (2012). Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender. Science, 335(6070), 864–866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelly, B. T., & McCann, K. I. (2014). Women faculty of color: Stories behind the statistics. The Urban Review, 46(4), 681–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kervyn, N., Bergsieker, H. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). The innuendo effect: Hearing the positive but inferring the negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Knouse, S. B. (1983). The letter of recommendation: Specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology, 36, 331–341.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb01441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuncel, N. R., Kochevar, R. J., & Ones, D. S. (2014). A meta-analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: Reasons for hope. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 101–107.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. LaCroix, P. P. (1985). Sex in recs: gender bias in recommendation writing. Journal of College Admission, 109, 24–26.Google Scholar
  56. Landrum, R. E., & Clump, M. A. (2004). Departmental search committees and the evaluation of faculty applicants. Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Landrum, R., Jeglum, E., & Cashin, J. (1994). The decision-making process of graduate admissions committees in psychology. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 239–248.Google Scholar
  58. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, Y. J., & Won, D. (2014). Trailblazing women in academia: Representation of women in senior faculty and the gender gap in junior faculty’s salaries in higher educational institutions. The Social Science Journal, 51(3), 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lerback, J., & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541(7638), 455–457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Levine, R. B., Lin, F., Kern, D. E., Wright, S. M., & Carrese, J. (2011). Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: A qualitative study at a single institution. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 752–758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Liu, O. L., Minsky, J., Ling, G., & Kyllonen, P. (2009). Using the standardized letters of recommendation in selection: Results from a multidimensional Rasch model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 475–492.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408322031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193–226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591–1599.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2001). Improving the validity of letters of recommendation: An investigation of three standardized reference forms. Military Psychology, 13, 199–222.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1304_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meizlish, D., & Kaplan, M. (2008). Valuing and evaluating teaching in academic hiring: A multidisciplinary, cross-institutional study. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mittenberg, W., Peterson, R. S., Cooper, J. T., Strauman, S., & Essig, S. M. (2000). Selection criteria for clinical neuropsychology internships. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Morgan, W. B., Elder, K. B., & King, E. B. (2013). The emergence and reduction of bias in letters of recommendation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2297–2306.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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(41), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  71. National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  72. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2004). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers, NSF 04-323, Project Officer, Alan I. Rapoport (Arlington, VA).Google Scholar
  73. Nicklin, M. J., & Roch, S. G. (2009). Letters of recommendation: Controversy and consensus from expert perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 76–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00453.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC 2001): A computerized text analysis program. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Perry, G., Moore, H., Edwards, C., Acosta, K., & Frey, C. (2009). Maintaining credibility and authority as an instructor of color in diversity-education classrooms: A qualitative inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Peterson, N. B., Friedman, R. H., Ash, A. S., Franco, S., & Carr, P. L. (2004). Faculty self-reported experience with racial and ethnic discrimination in academic medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(3), 259–265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Pyke, J. (2013). Women, choice and promotion or why women are still a minority in the professoriate. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 444–454.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 28–42 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165439.Google Scholar
  80. Ralston, S. M., & Thameling, C. A. (1988). Effects of vividness of language on information value of reference letters and job applicants’ recommendation. Psychological Reports, 62, 867–870.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical and nonlinear modeling [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  82. Rubini, M., & Menegatti, M. (2014). Hindering women’s careers in academia gender linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 0261927X14542436.Google Scholar
  83. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Perspective gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schmader, T., Whitehead, J., & Wysocki, V. H. (2007). A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 509–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sheehan, E. P., McDevitt, T. M., & Ross, H. C. (1998). Looking for a job as a psychology professor? Factors affecting applicant success. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 8–11.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2501_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shen, H. (2013). Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Stanley, C. A. (2006). Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color breaking the silence in predominantly White colleges and universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 701–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Taylor, D. (2007). Employment preferences and salary expectations of students in science and engineering. Bioscience, 57, 175–185.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B570212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Taylor, P. J., Pajo, K., Cheung, G. W., & Stringfield, P. (2004). Dimensionality and validity of a structured telephone reference check procedure. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 745–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon, F. G. (2015). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management., 44, 972–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society, 14, 191–220.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. U.S. Department of Commerce (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Executive summary. Economics and Statistics Administration. ESA Issue Brief #04-11. August Retrieved on 1/10/2015 at url: http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf.
  95. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2015). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144), characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
  96. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  97. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(1), 71–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00566.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Westring, A. F., Speck, M. R. M., Sammel, M. D., Scott, M. P., Tuton, L. W., Grisso, J. A., & Abbuhl, S. (2012). A culture conducive to women’s academic success: Development of a measure. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(11), 1622–1631.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826dbfd1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360–5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Once again, the origins of sex differences. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1062–1063.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1062.
  101. Yost, E., Winstead, V., Cotten, S. R., & Handley, D. M. (2013). The recruitment and retention of emerging women scholars in stem: Results from a national web-based survey of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 19(2), 143–163.  https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2013003021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan M. Madera
    • 1
  • Michelle R. Hebl
    • 2
  • Heather Dial
    • 2
  • Randi Martin
    • 2
  • Virgina Valian
    • 3
  1. 1.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Hunter College and CUNY Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations