Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Addressing Unintended Consequences of Gender Diversity Interventions on Women’s Sense of Belonging in STEM

  • Evava S. Pietri
  • Erin P. Hennes
  • John F. Dovidio
  • Victoria L. Brescoll
  • April H. Bailey
  • Corinne A. Moss-Racusin
  • Jo Handelsman
Original Article

Abstract

Validated interventions that increase bias literacy (i.e., knowledge of gender bias) and decrease sexism are critical to addressing pervasive gender biases in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, interventions that highlight existing gender inequities may inadvertently act as a social identity threat cue for women. Including identity-safe cues in diversity interventions (i.e., suggesting that women are valued in STEM) may lessen these problematic outcomes. To explore this possibility, we conducted three experiments utilizing Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM (VIDS), a validated diversity intervention relying on high quality videos to convey the existence of gender bias in STEM. Consistent with prior research, relative to control conditions, VIDS led to greater bias literacy and lower gender bias among both men and women (Experiments 1 and 2) and encouraged women’s intentions to take collective action (Experiment 2). At the same time, compared to control conditions, VIDS resulted in lower sense of belonging in the sciences, greater negative affect, and greater self-reported social identity threat, both among women from the general U.S. population (Experiments 1 and 2) and female scientists (Experiment 3). Including identity-safe cues, which present a positive female scientist role model (Experiment 2) or suggest that gender bias can be overcome (Experiments 2 and 3), helped alleviate VIDS’ harmful effects on women’s belonging and trust in the sciences, but had limited impact on stereotype threat. These findings highlight the need for researchers and practitioners to examine potential unintended negative consequences of diversity interventions and investigate techniques to buffer such outcomes.

Keywords

Bias literacy intervention Social identity threat STEM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the leaders of the Summer Institutes for assistance with participant recruitment, playwright Dipika Guha, biological sciences consultants Matthew Akamatsu and Jessica Miles, and Sean P. Lane for advice about data analysis. This research was funded in part by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grants #213-3-15 to the sixth and last author and #B2013-38 to the sixth author, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor grant to the last author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research was conducted in compliance with APA standards regarding the treatment of human participants. All participants received an online informed consent form prior to taking part in the experiments, and were provided with a thorough debriefing.

This research was funded in part by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grants #213–3-15 to the sixth and last author and #B2013–38 to the sixth author, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor grant to the last author.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_952_MOESM1_ESM.docx (67 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 67 kb)

References

  1. Abel, M. H., & Meltzer, A. L. (2007). Student ratings of a male and female professors’ lecture on sex discrimination in the workforce. Sex Roles, 57, 173–180.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9245-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgari, S., Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 370–383.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211431968.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00807.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avery, D. R., Volpone, S. D., Stewart, R. W., Luksyte, A., Hernandez, M., McKay, P. F., & Hebl, M. M. R. (2013). Examining the draw of diversity: How diversity climate perceptions affect job pursuit intentions. Human Resource Management, 52, 175–193.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 143–164.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227–242.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310397509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellas, M. L. (1993). Faculty salaries: Still a cost of being female? Social Science Quarterly, 74, 62–75.Google Scholar
  9. Bilimoria, D., & Liang, X. (2013). State of knowledge about the workface participation, equity, and inclusion of women in academic science and engineering. In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Cookmeyer, H. O. Ozturk, & M. Wayner (Eds.), Women, science and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 21–50). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2010). Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In S. T. Fiske & D. T. Gilbert (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 194–227). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars-Winston, A., … Sheridan, J. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 63–77.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028128.
  13. Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Manwell, L. B., Byars-Winston, A., Fine, E., Ford, C. E., et al. (2015). The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 90, 221–230.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, P. B., Dweck, C. S., & Pauker, K. (2012). “Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 452–471.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028849.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66, 184–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2005). " I am us": Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 566–582.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.566.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cundiff, J. L., Zawadzki, M. J., Danube, C. L., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 703–721.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dasgupta, N., Scircle, M. M., & Hunsinger, M. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women's motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 4988–4993.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422822112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhardstein, R. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1615–1628.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 749–768.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Good, C., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hennes, E. P., Pietri, E. S., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Mason, K. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, A., et al. (2018). Increasing the perceived malleability of gender bias using a modified video intervention for diversity in STEM (VIDS). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 788–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., & McCoy, S. K. (2004). Expectations about the future and the emotional consequences of perceiving prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 173–184.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259927.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity. Psychological Science, 17, 332–338.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01707.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lane, S. P., & Hennes, E. P. (2018). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 7–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517710342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1991). The concept of coping. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp. 189–206). New York: Columbus University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22, 1472–1477.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1123–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. McArdle, J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mendes, W. B., & Jamieson, J. (2012). Embodied stereotype threat: Exploring brain and body mechanisms underlying performance impairments. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader (Eds.), Stereotype threat (pp. 51–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1678–1712.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 73–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2014). Scientific diversity interventions. Science, 343, 615–616.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Pietri, E. S., Hennes, E. P., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Roussos, G., … Handelsman, J. (2018). Reducing STEM gender bias with VIDS (video interventions for diversity in STEM). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24, 236–260.Google Scholar
  49. Murphy, M. C., & Taylor, V. J. (2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining stereotype threat. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schamder (Eds.), Stereotype threat (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. National Science Foundation (NSF), National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017. Special Report NSF 17–310. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.
  52. Neel, R., & Shapiro, J. R. (2012). Is racial bias malleable? Whites’ lay theories of racial bias predict divergent strategies for interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 101–120.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.
  54. Paluck, E. L. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 577–595.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00474.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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, 175–196.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316674721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., & Ozgumus, E. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. President’s Counsel of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_2-13-12.pdf.
  59. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Diltmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rattan, A., & Ambady, N. (2014). How “it gets better”: Effectively communicating support to targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 555–566.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Renzulli, L. A., Grant, L., & Kathuria, S. (2006). Race, gender, and the wage gap: Comparing faculty salaries in predominately white and historically black colleges and universities. Gender & Society, 20, 491–510.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206287130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403–4408.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richman, L. S., van Dellen, M., & Wood, W. (2011). How women cope: Being a numerical minority in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosser, S. V. (2012). Breaking into the lab: Engineering progress for women in science. New York: NYU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosser, S. V., Daniels, J. Z., & Wu, L. (2006). Institutional factors contributing to dearth of women STEM faculty: Classification and status matter; location doesn't. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12, 79–93.  https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v12.i1.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  67. Schmader, T., & Beilock, S. (2012). An integration of processes that underlie stereotype threat. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schamder (Eds.), Stereotype threat (pp. 34–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197–210.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sevo, R., & Chubin, D. E. (2010). Bias literacy: A review of concepts in research on discrimination. In A. Cater-Steel & E. Cater (Eds.), Women in engineering, science and technology: Education and career challenges (pp. 21–54). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Stroebe, K., Ellemers, N., Barreto, M., & Mummendey, A. (2009). For better or for worse: The congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 576–591.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stroebe, K., Dovidio, J. F., Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & John, M. S. (2011). Is the world a just place? Countering the negative consequences of pervasive discrimination by reaffirming the world as just. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 484–500.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X523057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Loo, K. J., & Rydell, R. J. (2014). Negative exposure: Watching another woman subjected to dominant male behavior during a math interaction can induce stereotype threat. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 601–607.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613511501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vick, S. B., Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., & Weisbuch, M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on challenge and threat motivational states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 624–630.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2015a). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 468–485.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. C., & Ryan, A. M. (2015b). Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 523–550.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wang, K., Stroebe, K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Stigma consciousness and prejudice ambiguity: Can it be adaptive to perceive the world as biased? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 241–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2007). Effects of learning about gender discrimination on adolescent girls’ attitudes toward and interest in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 262–269.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00369.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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, 5360–5365.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, D. L., Cheung, H. K., Morner, M., & Lievens, F. (2016). Actions speak louder than words: Outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1329–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Wood, W. B., & Handelsman, J. (2004). Meeting report: The 2004 National Academies Summer Institute on undergraduate education in biology. Cell Biology Education, 3, 215–217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright, A. L., Schwindt, L. A., Bassford, T. L., Reyna, V. F., Shisslak, C. M., Germain, P. A. S., & Reed, K. L. (2003). Gender differences in academic advancement: Patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US College of medicine. Academic Medicine, 78, 500–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Zawadzki, M. J., Danube, C. L., & Shields, S. A. (2012). How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67, 605–616.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evava S. Pietri
    • 1
  • Erin P. Hennes
    • 2
  • John F. Dovidio
    • 3
  • Victoria L. Brescoll
    • 3
  • April H. Bailey
    • 3
  • Corinne A. Moss-Racusin
    • 4
  • Jo Handelsman
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, Organizational BehaviorYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Psychology DepartmentSkidmore CollegeSaratoga SpringsUSA
  5. 5.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations