Sex Roles

, Volume 78, Issue 5–6, pp 394–408 | Cite as

The Academic Conference as a Chilly Climate for Women: Effects of Gender Representation on Experiences of Sexism, Coping Responses, and Career Intentions

  • Jacklyn BiggsEmail author
  • Patricia H. Hawley
  • Monica Biernat
Original Article


Across many disciplines, women are underrepresented in faculty positions relative to men. The present research focuses on the academic conference as a setting because it is a gateway to an academic career and a context in which women might experience sexism. We surveyed 329 presenters (63% women) from three U.S. national academic conferences, which differed in women-to-men ratios, about their perceptions of the conference climate, their coping tactics (e.g., gender performance, silence, or voice), and their intentions to exit the conference or academia. The greater the representation of women at the conference relative to men, the less likely were women to perceive sexism and to feel they had to behave in a masculine manner in that setting. In contrast, women who perceived the conference as sexist and felt silenced also expressed increased intentions to exit from academic careers. Men’s perceptions of sexism predicted increased intentions to exit from that particular conference, but not from academia. Because conferences signal the norms of a discipline, it is important to explore their climates as they relate to gender. Perhaps especially for new and aspiring female academics, they may signal devalued status and lack of fit and as such play an inadvertent role in the “leaky pipeline.” We discuss strategies that conference organizers could implement to mitigate sexist climates, including broader inclusion of women in speaking and leadership roles and explicit attention to cues that women belong.


Sexism Academic settings Gender equality Organizational climate Career commitment 



The present manuscript is based on data from the first author’s doctoral dissertation.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_800_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The perils of political correctness: Men’s and women’s responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75–88. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43(3), 127–137. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benokraitis, N. V. (1997). Sex discrimination in the 21st century. In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change (pp. 5–33). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Biernat, M., & Hawley, P. (2017). Sexualized images in professional contexts: Effects on anticipated experiences and perceived climate for women and men. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Do women at the top make a difference? Gender proportions and the experiences of managerial and professional women. Human Relations, 49, 1093–1104. doi: 10.1177/001872679604900804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caza, B. B., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 335–350. doi: 10.1080/01973530701665108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., Sumner, R. A., & DeFraine, W. C. (2011). Do subtle cues about belongingness constrain women’s career choices? Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 255–258. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.619112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiu, C., Hong, Y., Lam, I. C., Fu, J. H., Tong, J. Y., & Lee, V. S. (1998). Stereotyping and self-presentation: Effects of gender stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 81–96. doi: 10.1177/1368430298011007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. The Academy of Management Review: Special Topic Forum on Stigma and Stigmatization, 33, 55–75. doi: 10.2307/20159376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93–115. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.2.93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An integrative model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–398. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 265–269. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Egri, C. P. (1992). Academic conferences as ceremonials: Opportunities for organizational integration and socialization. Journal of Management Education, 16, 90–115. doi: 10.1177/105256299201600107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 496–607. doi: 10.2307/255909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457783.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Garcia, D. M., Reser, A. H., Amo, R. B., Redersdorff, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Perceivers’ responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome on discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 769–780. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gherardi, S. (1994). The gender we think, the gender we do in our everyday organizational lives. Human Relations, 47, 591–611. doi: 10.1177/001872679404700602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Good, C. D., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. doi: 10.1037/a002665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Goulden, M., Mason, M. A., & Frasch, K. (2011). Keeping women in the science pipeline. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 141–162. doi: 10.1177/0002716211416925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? The project on the status and education of women. Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges Scholar
  34. 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. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Janz, T. A., & Pyke, S. W. (2000). A scale to assess student perceptions of academic climates. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30, 89–122.Google Scholar
  39. Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. doi: 10.1177/0146167201272010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Katila, S., & Meriläinen, S. (1999). A serious researcher or just another nice girl? Doing gender in a male-dominated scientific community. Gender, Work and Organization, 6, 163–173. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kehn, A., & Ruthig, J. C. (2013). Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: The moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles, 69(5–6), 289–296. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 213–238. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.t01-1-00012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kriwy, P., Gross, C., & Gottburgsen, A. (2013). Look who’s talking: Compositional effects of gender and status on verbal contributions at sociology conferences. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(5), 545–560. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00603.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In S. Thye & E. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (pp. 203–228). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  46. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Lun, J., Sinclair, S., & Cogburn, C. (2009). Cultural stereotypes and the self: A closer examination of implicit self-stereotyping. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 117–127. doi: 10.1080/01973530902880340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Monroe, K. R., & Chiu, W. F. (2010). Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. Political Science & Politics, 43, 303–308. doi: 10.1017/S104909651000017X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 140–151. doi: 10.1037/a0018093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2010). Survey of doctorate recipients. Retrieved from
  52. Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2009). How women engineers do and undo gender: Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work and Organization, 16, 411–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00406.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Priola, V. (2007). Being female and doing gender: Narratives of women in education management. Gender and Education, 19, 21–40. doi: 10.1080/09540250601087728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Riger, S., Stokes, J., Raja, S., & Sullivan, M. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for female faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 63–78. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1997.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riley, S., Frith, H., Archer, L., & Veseley, L. (2006). Institutional sexism in academia. The Psychologist, 19, 94–100.Google Scholar
  56. Rowe, M. P. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3, 153–163. doi: 10.1007/BF01388340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., & Jones, K. (2017). When women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender status. Sex Roles, 76, 17–26. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449–479). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 472–481. doi: 10.1177/1745691610373075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmitt, M. T., Ellemers, N., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Perceiving and responding to gender discrimination in organizations. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 277–292). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  62. Settles, I. H., & O’Connor, R. C. (2014). Incivility at academic conferences: Gender differences and the mediating role of climate. Sex Roles, 71, 71–82. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0355-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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, 47–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Stewart, A. J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 270–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00370.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Buchanan, N. T., & Miner, K. N. (2013). Derogation, discrimination, and (dis)satisfaction with jobs in science: A gendered analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 197–191. doi: 10.1177/0361684312468727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaw, A. K., & Stanton, D. E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: Separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 3736–3741. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0822.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(28), 10107–10112. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403334111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Van Allen, K. L., & Sechrist, G. B. (2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 69–74. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947–963. doi: 10.1037/a0019920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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(2), 255–270. doi: 10.1037/a0021385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say? Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (2009). Sexism. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 407–430). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  73. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51(3–4), 117–128. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000037757.73192.06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Swim, J. K., Eyssell, K. M., Murdoch, E. Q., & Ferguson, M. J. (2010). Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 493–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change: Notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Social Science Information, 14, 101–118. doi: 10.1177/053901847501400204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.Google Scholar
  78. Toren, N. (1990). Would more women make a difference? In S. Stiver Lie & V. E. O'Leary (Eds.), Storming the tower: Women in the academic world (pp. 74–85). London: Kogan.Google Scholar
  79. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  80. van Anders, S. M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 5, 511–521. doi: 10.1007/s11199-004-5461-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walkerdine, V. (1989). Femininity as performance. Oxford Review of Education, 15, 267–279. doi: 10.1080/0305498890150307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, J. Z., Marks, G., Noone, L., & Hamilton-McKenzie, J. (2010). Retaining a foothold on the slippery paths of academia: University women, indirect discrimination, and the academic marketplace. Gender and Education, 22, 535–545. doi: 10.1080/09540250903354404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5, 178–192. doi: 10.1177/089124391005002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yoder, J. D. (1994). Looking beyond numbers: The effects of gender status, job prestige, and occupational gender-typing on tokenism processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 150–159. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Center for Public Partnerships and ResearchUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.College of EducationTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations