Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 419–438 | Cite as

Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM

  • Sarah M. Jackson
  • Amy L. HillardEmail author
  • Tamera R. Schneider


Implicit biases can foster negative attitudes and lead to damaging stereotypical behaviors. Stereotypes can negatively affect the education, hiring, promotion, and retention of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This study evaluated the impact of diversity training on university faculty (\(N = 234\)) by assessing changes in implicit associations and explicit attitudes toward women in STEM. Personal implicit associations about women in STEM improved for men, but not for women who already tended toward more positive implicit associations at pre-test. Men were more likely than women to explicitly endorse stereotypes about women in STEM at both pre- and post-test, and these attitudes did not change as a result of the diversity training. These findings suggest that participation in a brief diversity training can improve implicit associations about women in STEM.


Gender Stereotypes Implicit attitudes Diversity training 



This research was part of a larger study supported by NSF ADVANCE HRD 0810989. We would like to thank Gary Burns for his contributions, and the ADVANCE LEADER team and STEM department chairs at all four institutions for their assistance and cooperation.


  1. Bar-Anan, Y., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures. Behavior Research Methods. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0410-6.
  2. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity training: Where we have been and where we should go. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 207–227. doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.0090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burrelli, J. (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA (NSF 08–308). Retrieved from
  5. Carnes, M., Devine, P. G., Isaac, C., Manwell, L. B., Ford, C. E., Byars-Winston, A., et al. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle 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. Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender-science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.
  10. Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. doi: 10.1177/0146167202250923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Welde, K., Laursen, S., & Thiry, H. (2007). SWS fact sheet: Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Network News: The Newsletter for Sociologists for Women in Society, 23(4), 14–19. Retrieved from
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuchs, D., Tamkins, M. M., Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Han, H. A., Czellar, S., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2010). Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heilman, E. H., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewstone, M., Johnston, L., & Aird, P. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: (2) Perceptions of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillard, A. L., Jackson, S. M., & Schneider, T. R. (2012). Best Practices for Discussing Diversity and Implicit Bias in the Classroom. Chicago, IL: Poster Presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  25. Hillard, A. L., Ryan, C. S., & Gervais, S. J. (2013). Reactions to the Implicit Association Test as an educational tool: A mixed methods study. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 495–516. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9219-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holdren, J. P. (2012). Equal futures: Opening doors to high-quality education and career opportunities for women and girls in STEM. Office of the Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from
  28. Hong, S., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 774–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, I., & Hass, G. R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, M., & Bruner, G. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17(2), 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macrae, C. M., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCauley, C., Wright, M., & Harris, M. E. (2000). Diversity workshops on campus: A survey of current practice at U.S. colleges and universities. College Student Journal, 34(1), 100–114. Retrieved from
  35. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Monteith, M. J., Mark, A. Y., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). The self-regulation of prejudice: Toward understanding its lived character. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monteith, M. J., & Voils, C. I. (1998). Proneness to prejudiced responses: Toward understanding the authenticity of self-reported discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 901–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris, K. A., Ashburn-Nardo, L., & Padgett, R. J. (2011). Think fast: Using web-based reaction time technology to promote teaching about racial bias and diversity. In D. S. Dunn, J. C. Wilson, J. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Getting connected: Best practices for technology-enhanced teaching and learning in higher education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morton, J., & Rosse, M. (2011). Persuasive presentations in engineering spoken discourse. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17(2), 55–64.Google Scholar
  40. 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 of the United States of America, 109, 16474–16479.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. National Research Council. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. (2013a). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2012 (NSF Publication No. 14–305). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from
  44. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013b). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013 (NSF Publication No. 13–304). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from
  45. Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Math \(=\) male, me \(=\) female, therefore math \(\ne \) me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.Google Scholar
  47. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nosek, B. A., & Hansen, J. J. (2008). Personalizing the Implicit Association Test increases explicit evaluation of target concepts. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nosek, B. A., & Lane, K. (1999). Analyzing paper-pencil IAT data. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
  50. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Office of the Press Secretary. (2013). Fact sheet: The equal futures partnership—From promise to progress. The White House. Retrieved from
  52. Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2004). The influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: Personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 653–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paluck, E. L. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call for action research. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 577–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). “Unlearning” automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 856–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider, T. R., Rivers, S. E., & Lyons, J. B. (2009). The biobehavioral model of persuasion: Generating challenge appraisals to promote health. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1928–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teachman, B. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: Is anyone immune? International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders, 25(10), 1525–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48.Google Scholar
  63. Vargas, P., Sekaquaptewa, D., & von Hippel, W. (2007). Armed only with paper and pencil: “Low-tech” measures of implicit attitudes. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitiudes (pp. 103–124). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2007). Implicit measures of attitudes. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  65. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2000). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 536–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wright, A. L., Schwindt, L. A., Bassford, T. L., Reyna, V. F., Shisslak, C. M., Germain, P. A. S., et al. (2003). Gender differences in academic advancement: Patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US College of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 78(5), 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah M. Jackson
    • 1
  • Amy L. Hillard
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tamera R. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyAdrian CollegeAdrianUSA

Personalised recommendations